Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 28 October 2009, of the Independent Review into the broader issues surrounding the loss of the RAF Nimrod MR2 Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006.—( Mr. Blizzard.)

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Tessa Jowell: Both reports reflect very fairly the state of events that led to the police involvement—a series of leaks, some of which gave rise to concern about national security. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to reach a different judgment. I have made it clear in my answer that the lessons of the O'Connor and Johnston reports will be applied in full, and I will certainly consult the Cabinet Secretary about the release of the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Angela Smith: We recognise that this is a very difficult time for the sector, with some parts experiencing increased demand for their services at the same time as having concerns about their financial situation. That is why the Government have provided a comprehensive package of support for the third sector worth up to £42.5 million. The money is getting out there right now to groups who need it. Thousands of grants have been made, and that is supporting the communities that need it most and providing jobs.

Angela Smith: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has a reputation in his constituency for his involvement in the third sector, and the points that he makes are entirely valid. Let me mention some of the things that the Government are doing; I hope that other funders will consider them. Grass-root grants are going directly to smaller organisations—an initiative that has never been taken before, coupled with an endowment process—and that is providing £130 million. That can address the issue of core funding. We also have the community assets programme, providing £30 million across the country for projects involving buildings that are sustainable for the long term. May I direct him also to Communitybuilders, a £70 million programme that was recently opened for applications and has received 1,500 already? That is the kind of programme that the organisations he mentions will benefit from.

Angela Smith: The changes that we have made to charity law and to accounting and reporting thresholds have resulted in savings of thousands of pounds for charities. Departments are cutting red tape for third sector organisations, and further progress will be reported before the end of the year. The Government and the National Audit Office have produced guidance to reduce red tape associated with the £12 billion a year that the sector gets from the Government.

Alun Michael: I think I am right in saying that a case of that sort was taken to court by the local authority in Cardiff recently, resulting in a fine of £750. Perhaps that ought to have been higher, but will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities and magistrates to use their existing powers to the full to drive these cancerous companies out of business, and to allow the public confidence that what they give goes where it is intended?

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I congratulate Cardiff council on taking that prosecution. A £750 fine is significant for those who are involved in such illegal activities, and I will certainly talk to my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see how we can work to together to encourage local authorities to enforce their current powers.

Peter Bone: The Cabinet Office booklet helpfully ranks Cabinet Ministers in order of importance—No. 1 being the Prime Minister, No. 2 being the Leader— [ Interruption. ]

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the ranking of the Cabinet: No. 1 is the Prime Minister, No. 2 is the Leader of the Commons and No. 3 is the Lord Mandelson, who is more important than the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Defence Secretary. In fact, the Defence Secretary is listed as the third-least important— [ Interruption. ]

Jennifer Willott: Ministerial lists have to be reprinted frequently because of the Government's obsession with changing the machinery of government. Since 2005, the Department for Trade and Industry has had four incarnations, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been split up and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills abolished—the list goes on. Does the Minister agree that those reorganisations are unnecessary and expensive, and staff time would be better spent working on policy and problems than on changing the headed paper?

Angela Smith: I am very pleased to answer this question in the run-up to social enterprise day on 19 November, which is a celebration of the 62,000 social enterprises in the UK. Last week, I met 13 social enterprise ambassadors at the restaurant Fifteen, itself a thriving social enterprise, and they are some of the most inspiring social entrepreneurs in the country, together employing more than 1,400 people. Social enterprises contribute about £24 billion to the economy each year and employ 800,000 people. It is clear that at their best social enterprises contribute to a stronger economy and a fairer society.

Angela Smith: One of things that the Government need to look at—and are doing so—is how to get more capital investment into social enterprises. My hon. Friend may be aware that we have recently concluded our consultation on the creation of a social investment wholesale bank. Consultation closed on 7 October and we are looking at the responses to see how we can best ensure that we get more capital investment into social enterprise, to the benefit of the economy and the community as a whole.

Angela Smith: It is very good when the Government offices for the regions can co-operate with social enterprises. Indeed, I recently visited Hackney transport social enterprise, which is doing tremendous work for the local community. The public are now looking for something different from their business enterprises—social and environmental concern instead of just the financial bottom line. It is important for Government at all levels to co-operate and work with social enterprise— [ Interruption. ]

Angela Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer a moment ago, but I can also assure him that the Government—

Angela Smith: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the difficulties facing the sector. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), an increased amount of services are being provided, but at the same time there are concerns about financial support for the sector. The Government's package of support during the recession of up to £42 million will help to address that.

Angela Smith: I would love to be able to do so, but I think that it might be beyond my powers. Obviously, if the Government can give any support or advice, we will be happy to do so. I understand that the Scottish Executive have looked at this matter as well. It is time to place on the record—perhaps this message can go back—how much we greatly value the foundation and the support given by such organisations. We hope that efforts can be made to ensure that it continues.

Angela Smith: I have to challenge the hon. Lady when she says that the £42.5 million put into the third sector is not working. Charitable organisations on the ground will tell us the difference that it makes. I can also say that she needs to talk to the Charity Commission about the reasons for the figure. Plucking out headlines figures does not tell the true picture. More than 1,000 charities have chosen to merge, and the commission has said that it had to clear up the list. A number of those charities have been active for some years. Obviously, we want the number of third sector organisations to increase and those organisations to develop. That is why the Government have a plan to do that.

Angela Smith: It is a pleasure—albeit an unusual one—to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, recognise the value of volunteers, and I can assure him that a number of programmes are in place to train volunteers, to help them to broker the arrangements for volunteers that enable them to volunteer in the right way and to use the right skills of volunteers. Not only do charities benefit; the economy as a whole benefits. It is often a route into work. I entirely agree, therefore, with his proposition that volunteers are essential to civic society.

Tessa Jowell: I know that the hon. Lady has a great interest in this matter and is concerned, as we all are, that the recommendations of the Pitt review that followed the 2007 floods be implemented swiftly. To this end, the natural hazards team in the Cabinet Office has been established and is developing a programme to reduce the disruption to critical infrastructure and essential services that caused so much suffering during those floods. A statement of policy is being developed with local authorities, regulators and the relevant industries. A wider consultation on this will follow in November and no doubt Members on both sides of the House will wish to engage in this. The—

The Prime Minister was asked—

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal James Oakland and Corporal Thomas Mason? They died serving our country and our thoughts should be with their families and friends. As the Prime Minister said, we should also think of those six UN aid workers who were killed in that dreadful attack in Kabul.
	Before I get on to other questions, may I welcome the Government's complete U-turn on cutting £20 million from training in the Territorial Army? That was brought about after questions by Conservative MPs and Labour MPs, and from this Dispatch Box. Can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth he was thinking of when he was thinking of cutting Army training at a time when the country is at war?

Gordon Brown: First of all, let me repeat my condolences, as the right hon. Gentleman has, to those people who have died, one of whom was injured in the summer and subsequently died in Birmingham. Our thoughts must also be with the United Nations and the relatives of those staff today. I will be speaking to the UN Secretary-General to tell him that no terrorism should deter us from our actions in Afghanistan.
	As far as the training for Afghanistan is concerned, there are three stages to it and all are important. First, we have to ensure that our regular Army has the numbers that are necessary. That is why an additional 9,300 people have been recruited to the Army over the past year. That means that Army numbers are now at 101,000, which of course means more money. The second thing was to ensure that the Territorial Army, which was sending people to Afghanistan, had them going to Afghanistan properly trained and equipped. I was sure when I reported to the House two weeks ago that that is what we would do.
	The third thing is that, having spent an additional £1 billion on Afghanistan this year and spending £1 billion extra on defence for costs associated with Afghanistan and other things, we could or would be able to spend on the Territorial Army. Having looked at all the issues, including the extra £1 billion that we are spending on Afghanistan, and having talked to the Chief of the Defence Staff, I decided that that was the right thing to do. However, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are spending £1 billion more on Afghanistan and £1 billion more on defence. It is wrong for him to say that we are not spending sufficiently on defence; we are.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister tells us that he has been consistent in saying that we would be out of recession by the end of the year. I am not going to let him get away with that. In September, he said:
	"We are now coming out of a recession, as a result of the actions we have taken".
	He also said in September:
	"I think you will see figures pretty soon that show the action that Britain is taking yielding effect".
	In June, he claimed that Britain was
	"leading the rest of the world...out of recession".—[ Official Report, 3 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 268.]
	The fact is that France, Germany and Japan have been growing for six months. Does he now accept that he got it comprehensively wrong?

Gordon Brown: If I have to explain to him, Germany and Japan have had a far deeper recession that we have. Equally, at the same time, unemployment in this country is far lower than it is in America or in the euro area, and that is a result of the actions that we have taken. The right hon. Gentleman can read every statement that he likes, but this is absolutely consistent with my view, and the Chancellor's view, that we would come out of the recession by the end of the year. The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman has policies that would keep us in recession. His policies would mean more unemployment, because he will not support the new deal, more small businesses going under—we have supported 200,000 small businesses—and more home owners losing their homes. That is the policy of the Conservative party. He cannot deny that he got every aspect of this recession wrong.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Corporal Thomas Mason and Corporal James Oakland, who served so bravely in Afghanistan—and, of course, to the family and friends of the six UN aid workers who were so brutally murdered in Kabul.
	The international climate change summit is now only a few weeks away, and what happens in Copenhagen will shape our world for generations to come. I welcome a lot of the Prime Minister's pre-summit rhetoric; if words could do the trick, we would be halfway to a deal already. When it comes to the environment, however, it is actions that really count, so how would the Prime Minister characterise his Government's green record over the last decade?

Nicholas Clegg: As far as the Prime Minister's own record is concerned, the sad truth is that he has done far too little, far too late. Total emissions are up, and air travel is up. The Prime Minister wants a new runway at Heathrow, he wants more dirty coal power stations and more nuclear energy plants, our housing stock is the most poorly insulated in Europe—and last week the Prime Minister got all his MPs to vote against the 10:10 environment campaign. Does he not realise that unless he acts fast to fix things here at home, he will have no chance and no authority to fix things in Copenhagen?

Gordon Brown: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wrote his second question before he had heard my answer to the first. I set out very clearly the actions that we have taken on the environment. I think that the hon. Gentleman's party's position would be a lot better if Liberal councillors across the country did not vote against planning consent, so that we could have renewable energy, and I think that his own position would be a lot stronger if he could say that he would support nuclear energy, which is one of the means by which we can reduce carbon emissions.
	We will continue to fight for a deal at Copenhagen. I believe that all parties should be interested in that being achieved, and I think that we should all campaign together to secure that deal at Copenhagen.

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts to raise the profile of how we can do more to help grandparents. He may know—because I think he has been part of this—that we are holding a cross-government summit in November to listen to the experience of grandparents and their organisations. From 2011 grandparents who look after grandchildren will receive national insurance credit, and we will publish a Green Paper on that in the next few months. The role of grandparents is absolutely vital to every family in the country, and we should do everything that we can to strengthen the role that they can play.

John Baron: Even those of us who believed that the Government fundamentally underestimated the task when they first became involved in Afghanistan felt that the recent fraud-ridden presidential election was a worrying development. Given that the Prime Minister is aware that troops provide time and space but not a political solution—which will be an essential part of the jigsaw if we are now to succeed—what lessons has he learned from this period when it comes to any election run-off?

Gordon Brown: First, as the elections take place—and the date has already been set—we must ensure that there are sufficient monitors as well as sufficient security. One of the problems during the last election was that there were insufficient monitors, which allowed corrupt ballots to take place. Secondly, we must work towards a political solution. It is not simply a military solution that we are looking for. We want to strengthen local government so that people in Afghanistan feel that they have a stake in the future of the country, and we want to have a corruption-free central Government. That is one of the problems with which we have been dealing for many years.
	We—the Americans, NATO and others—will have to sign a contract with the new President, whoever he is, so that early action can be taken to deal with those abuses. In the longer term, of course, we want to split the Taliban ideologues from the others, and to reconcile where that is possible, so that we can build a stronger democratic centre to ensure the future of Afghanistan. Our role is to be there to build up the Afghan military and police so that they are able to take more responsibility for their own affairs and, as a result, the number of our troops can fall.

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend will be aware that during his period as Chancellor and Prime Minister, British canals have been turned around from being a drain on our nation's resources to being a national asset. Will he ensure that British Waterways is seen not as an asset to be sold off, but as an asset to be treasured—like our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—and used for public benefit as well as local regeneration?

Gordon Brown: We have made it very clear that if this position is to be created—the European treaty is not yet through—and if the former Prime Minister Tony Blair comes forward as a candidate, we will be very happy to support him.

Gordon Brown: No, the Government are doing more to promote low-carbon industries in this country. We are investing in the new technologies, and we are supporting a range of small, medium-sized and large businesses. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about these issues, but I am convinced that we are doing as much as we can now—we will do more in the future—to help the development of low-carbon industries in his constituency and throughout the country.

Graham Stuart: Last weekend, Members from all three of the main political parties and both Houses were among 100 legislators from the major economies who came together at the GLOBE legislators forum, which was attended by the Prime Minister of Denmark, on the subject of climate change. The GLOBE forum resulted in a consensus of the 100 legislators on a set of legislative principles that were jointly put forward by United States Congressman Ed Markey and Chairman Wang Guangtao of China. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet the UK's delegation to that GLOBE meeting ahead of the conference of the parties—COP—meeting in December?

Clive Efford: We run the risk of being a generation of politicians that did not make the right decisions to tackle one of the biggest issues confronting us, which is climate change, and to minimise its impact on future generations. May I commend my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken? He has been the first Head of State to recognise the need for leaders of Governments to attend the Copenhagen summit and to take part in those debates. Do not listen to the nay-sayers over there— [ Interruption. ]

David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Prime Minister knows, this is the international year of astronomy. Does he therefore support the campaign for dark skies, which is good for astronomy and also saves energy? If he does, will he play his part by turning off—or at least dimming—the lights in public buildings, including Downing street, where all the lights are on very late into the night?

Bob Ainsworth: I am today publishing the report of the independent review that the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), announced on 4 December 2007 following the loss of Nimrod aircraft XV230 over Afghanistan on 2 September 2006. Fourteen members of the armed forces tragically lost their lives on that day.
	The Ministry of Defence must take responsibility for many of the failings identified in the board of inquiry. My predecessor said as much at the Dispatch Box in December 2007, when he announced that we were setting up an independent review under a senior Queen's counsel, Mr. Charles Haddon-Cave, to look into the events that led to the loss. I am grateful to Mr. Haddon-Cave, who has provided a rigorous and powerful report. It will be very distressing reading for many, and particularly for those families who lost their loved ones three years ago.
	On behalf of the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force, I would like again to say sorry to all the families who lost loved ones. I am sorry for the mistakes that have been made and that lives have been lost as a result of our failure. Nothing I can say or do will bring these men back, but for their sake, and for the sake of those families, friends and former colleagues who grieve, we can provide clarity about what actually happened, where failings occurred and what must be done to ensure that, as far as possible, this never happens again.
	Flying, especially in a military context, is never without risk. We have an obligation to our people to understand and manage those risks and to ensure they are as low as reasonably practicable. The safety of our personnel is of paramount importance and that is why the report is so significant. Mr. Haddon-Cave was asked to review the arrangements for assuring the airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod aircraft over its service life, to assess where responsibility lies for any failures, to assess more broadly the process for compiling safety cases, taking into account best practice in the civilian and military world, and to make recommendations. In his report, Mr. Haddon-Cave has been critical of both the MOD and our industrial partners, at both organisational and individual levels. He has stated clearly that the loss of XV230 was preventable.
	As he was asked to do, Mr. Haddon-Cave has also made a number of recommendations in his report about what we must do to learn lessons for the future. He has proposed new key principles around which we should base our airworthiness processes—leadership, independence, people and simplicity.
	I met Mr. Haddon-Cave this morning and we discussed his report. It identifies numerous weaknesses in the airworthiness system that we will address thoroughly and urgently, but he has confirmed to me that his report does not raise concerns over the actual airworthiness of individual fleets, and I have been assured by the Chief of the Air Staff and the defence chief airworthiness engineer that our fleets remain safe to fly. I have full confidence in our people carrying out airworthiness duties, but we need to ensure that they are supported by an improved process.
	Mr. Haddon-Cave also states that, in our pursuit of financial savings, the MOD and the RAF allowed their focus on safety to suffer. We accept this with regard to the Nimrod XV230. As a Department, we have a duty to continue to seek efficiencies in how we deliver defence, but I am absolutely clear that that must not be done with any detriment to safety.
	The two officers still serving in the RAF who are strongly criticised in the report have been moved to staff posts that have no responsibility for safety and airworthiness. The RAF will now consider what further action should be taken in relation to these officers, in light of the evidence uncovered by the report. Mr. Haddon-Cave has, quite rightly, made it abundantly clear that he wants the Department to produce a considered response to his report.
	We will now examine all aspects of the report, produce a full response and update the House before the Christmas recess. I have set this challenging timetable because I want to ensure that we can act with confidence that the right decisions will be made and that the necessary work will be seen through.
	We have not been idle waiting for the outcome of Mr. Haddon-Cave's review. Let me set out briefly what the Ministry has already done in the three years since the loss of Nimrod XV230. We have implemented a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that we can have confidence in the safety and airworthiness of the Nimrod aircraft as it is today. This involves implementing the recommendations of the board of inquiry, and includes ceasing the use of the air-to-air refuelling system, as well as of the aircraft's relevant hot air systems while the aircraft is in flight, and adopting an enhanced aircraft maintenance and systems inspection regime. We do not allow Nimrod aircraft to fly without having had their engine bay hot air ducts replaced, and we have introduced an ageing aircraft systems audit focused on guaranteeing the safety of the Nimrod's systems for the remainder of its service life. This included a forensic-level inspection of a Nimrod aircraft.
	We have applied these lessons to other aircraft as necessary, taking steps to examine, review, strengthen and improve the systems for assuring safety and airworthiness. We are aware that the implications stretch more broadly across defence to other items of equipment, and so we have also scrutinised our safety management processes and organisation with great care.
	Safety is now given absolute priority at the highest levels in the MOD. It is the first point on the agenda at every senior management team meeting, and this flows down throughout the organisation as a whole. As a demonstration of our commitment to improved safety and airworthiness, we have also established a new senior post, that of the defence chief airworthiness engineer, to provide improved assurance to me that the whole technical airworthiness process, from end to end—that is, from industry through project teams to the front line—is in accordance with the Department's regulations. Mr. Haddon-Cave welcomes this in his report as a step in the right direction. We are working hard to ensure that we capture the lessons from incidents and inquiries to improve our safety. As an organisation, the MOD is changing its culture and approach to put safety first.
	All these measures ensure that we can continue to fly the Nimrod safely and that it can continue to conduct its essential work in the remaining months of its service life. Mr. Haddon-Cave undertook at the outset of his review to issue an urgent interim report outlining his concerns, if he found evidence that the Nimrod fleet was not safe to fly. As he says in his report, he has not found it necessary to do so. He states in his report
	"that appropriate and timely steps have been, and continue to be, taken by the MOD and the RAF to address the immediate airworthiness issues raised by the loss of XV230 and the BOI report and subsequent discoveries about the Nimrod fleet. Indeed, the level of scrutiny now applied to the Nimrod fleet is such that it is probably one of the most closely monitored operational military aircraft fleets in the world."
	The report is a tough read. Its subtitle—"A Failure of Leadership, Culture and Priorities"—is a stark judgment. We are determined to address this and the clear message in the report that we have to do more. I pay tribute, as does Mr. Haddon-Cave in his report, to the Nimrod communities, whom I commend for their skill and professionalism. The Nimrod continues to have an important role in the defence of this country, and the current fleets are, on current plans, very shortly to be replaced by new aircraft.
	Our armed forces are truly the best in the world, and we are committed to providing them with all the support that they need, including learning the lessons and making the changes for the better if tragedies occur. Let me say again that the safety of our personnel is of paramount importance. In the case of Nimrod XV230, we failed. We cannot undo this. Nothing will bring back those 14 men, and for their grieving families, the loss will be with them for ever. I will do everything in my power to guard against anything like this happening again. I am today placing a copy of Mr. Haddon-Cave's report in the Library of the House.

Liam Fox: For the families of those whose lives were lost, today will bring back painful memories and reawaken emotions of grief and anger. Our thoughts are with all those families today.
	The House owes a great debt to Charles Haddon-Cave for the report. It is a formidable indictment and describes multiple and repeated systemic failures. It is genuinely shocking. Its most damning central conclusion is that there were previous incidents and warning signs that were ignored, and that the loss of the aircraft was avoidable.
	The criticism of the Nimrod safety case is excoriating. The report says that it
	"was a lamentable job from start to finish. It was riddled with errors. It missed the key dangers. Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency, and cynicism."
	How will oversight of such projects occur in future?
	The report is critical of the Nimrod integrated project team, and of QinetiQ and BAE, including specific individuals. How will these be dealt with, and how can we ensure that technical guarantees given to Ministers in the future by these and other companies can be relied upon and independently verified?
	The Government as a whole must bear responsibility for the way in which the MOD has been treated under the pressure of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. As the report says:
	"Financial pressures and cuts drove a cascade of multifarious organisational changes, which led to a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MOD, and distraction from safety and airworthiness issues as the top priority."
	Ministers themselves must address their failure of stewardship at the MOD. The report says:
	"The shortcomings in the current airworthiness system in the MOD are manifold and include...a failure to adhere to basic Principles...a Military Airworthiness System that is not fit for purpose...a Safety Case regime which is ineffective and wasteful...an inadequate appreciation of the needs of Aged Aircraft...a series of weaknesses in the area of Personnel...an unsatisfactory relationship between the MOD and industry...an unacceptable Procurement process leading to serial delays and cost-overruns; and ...a Safety Culture that has allowed 'business' to eclipse Airworthiness."
	This report must act as a wake-up call for us all—for politicians, for industry and for the military. Cutting corners costs lives. Wars cannot be fought on a peacetime budget, and there is a moral imperative that those who are willing to risk their lives in the armed service of their country should know at all times that everything is being done to maximise the chance of success of their mission and to minimise their risk in carrying it out. The failure to do this resulted in the death of 14 servicemen—the avoidable and preventable death of 14 servicemen. The report concludes: "In my view"—the aircraft—
	"was lost because of a systemic breach of the Military Covenant brought about by significant failures on the part of all those involved."
	There could not be a more damning charge list.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not retreat from many of the comments made by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Haddon-Cave asks us to implement an entire new airworthiness system and to address further the culture that he sees as the basic problem within the MOD and in parts of the armed forces. The only thing that I can say in mitigation is that that has been recognised, and recognised some time ago, and that a lot of work has been done throughout the time that I have been a Minister at the MOD to try to put those systems in the right place. Having looked at Mr. Haddon-Cave's report, we have to make absolutely certain that we are going to the lengths that we need to to make certain that we recalibrate that culture within the Department. I am not sure whether we have got there yet, so there is more that we have to do.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a wake-up call, probably for far wider than just defence. The pursuit of efficiency is something that every organisation must do—public sector, private sector, Government and the rest. But sometimes organisations lose sight of some of the basic fundamentals as they try to drive in those efficiencies. We need to consider matters in detail, and we need to use the report as a tool to get the change that is absolutely necessary within the MOD. There were glaring dangers apparent in the aircraft for decades, and there were opportunities to spot those dangers, which were simply missed. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, apologised to the House for that. We knew that that was so at the time of the board of inquiry, and we need to repeat it and to have some due modesty about the situation that we find.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not disagree, again, with many of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are not unaware of the weaknesses in the procurement system. We commissioned Bernard Gray's report in the first place and we published it last week—I think that it was only last week—to help us to address those issues. Mr. Haddon-Cave, in his report, refers to procurement as part of the cause of the problem, and we need to make absolutely certain that we learn the right lessons, not the wrong lessons.
	In the Nimrod saga, there has often been a focus on the safety of the aircraft itself and whether it should be grounded. Charles Haddon-Cave focuses on the systems themselves, and that is where the focus needs to be. There were systems that simply did not fit the purpose for which they were designed, and, instead of being distracted by other issues, that is where we must focus our attention and that is what we must put right. As the hon. Gentleman has said, safety cases have become completely distorted to the point where they simply are not—or were not, in this case—value for money or of any benefit at all. Putting those systems right has to be our overriding priority.

James Arbuthnot: As I listened to the Secretary of State's words and read about the tick-box culture, I thought that he was genuinely sorry. However, I thought that he and, perhaps, all of us have no understanding of the massive job that we face in changing the culture not just of the Ministry of Defence, but of the country. In that respect, I was very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition in his place, listening to the Secretary of State's statement. However, if we are to change the culture, let us start here. The strength of this crushing report is that it was rigorously independent. But the Secretary of State has yet to accept the key recommendation of Bernard Gray's review of acquisition—that the assessment of the equipment programme should be similarly rigorously independent. Why not; and, will the Secretary of State please do so?

Bob Ainsworth: If my hon. Friend manages to read the report, which is very lengthy and detailed, he will see that it contains words that could be read as indicating that Mr. Haddon-Cave himself feels that not only the Nimrod fleet, but some of our other aircraft fleets are not safe to fly today. The reason why I met Mr. Haddon-Cave this morning was to make absolutely certain that I understood what he was saying in his report—I thought that I did on my overnight reading of it, and he confirmed that this morning. It is not only the Chief of the Air Staff and the individual in the new position of defence chief airworthiness safety engineer who are telling me that the fleet is safe, but Mr. Haddon-Cave. Mr. Haddon-Cave says that, on Nimrod, he had been invited to make an interim report, if he felt that one was necessary, because of airworthiness considerations. He has not made that report. He assured me this morning that his report should not be read as saying that our current fleet or fleets are not safe as they fly today.

Douglas Hogg: May I say to the Secretary of State that I accept that he is deeply distressed by the report and will do his best to implement the recommendations? May I also say that many of us fear that the long-standing disregard for safety, arising out of a concern for savings, may extend right across the MOD budget—for example, into the military budget, including armoured vehicles and the historical lack of body protection; the Navy, perhaps, with its submarines; and the RAF, with the Nimrod and, I fear, the Puma? Given all that, will he accept that the situation requires a change of culture at the highest level of the services, probably involving direct intervention from Ministers?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, I do. I accept that savings were a part of the problem—I do not demur from that at all—but I do not think that the pursuit of savings alone is the cause of the problem. It is therefore necessary to drive through culture change. We have been trying to do that, as I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept. We have learned the lessons not only from Nimrod but from the deaths on the Tireless submarine a couple of years ago. We have tried to learn the lessons of our own boards of inquiry in trying to drive in the management and cultural change that is needed in the armed forces as well as in the MOD.

Angus Robertson: I welcome this hard-hitting and detailed report, as will my constituents, who wish all the best for everybody at RAF Kinloss and the families of the 14 brave service personnel who died aboard the Nimrod XV230. We have had an independent inquiry and inquests, we have had reviews, we have had numerous reports, and we have had analysis about Nimrod. At every stage, Ministers have given assurances that the right lessons would be learned and acted on. Clearly, they were not—so why should we have confidence in the assurances that we have heard today?

Bob Ainsworth: We commissioned the report because we knew that assurances were necessary given the findings of the board of inquiry—not through any fault of its own, but because the terms of reference of boards of inquiry mean that they do not consider the wider background and apportioning blame but the direct causes of the accident. There was an absolute necessity to commission this piece of work because it was obvious that some of the reasons for the crash went beyond the remit of the board of inquiry. I hope that we are able to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents—many of the lost lived in his constituency—that we take this matter very seriously and are determined to drive in the change that is necessary. When I meet the families of service personnel who have lost their lives in very many circumstances, I find that their overriding desire is to know that their loved one did not lose their life in vain and that we genuinely learn the lessons of the loss that they have suffered; and that is what we must try to do.

Hugo Swire: The MOD is very often—continually, it seems—criticised for its inability to provide the right equipment at the right place. Surely we can expect that when equipment is provided it is at least safe and airworthy. There are two stark facts in this report. First, Mr. Haddon-Cave refers again to the pursuit of financial savings and taking eyes off the safety ball; and secondly, he is very critical of our industrial partners. We heard what the Secretary of State said about the internal review that he is going to conduct within the MOD. What ultimate sanctions can be taken as regards our industrial partners, and how can they be called to account?

Bob Ainsworth: This is a very detailed report with some pretty far-reaching criticisms, not only of us but of others—individuals and companies, including important British companies. I therefore do not want to leap to conclusions about how we take these matters forward. I have promised to look in detail at every aspect of the report and to come back to the House before Christmas, and I will do that.

Anne Main: I welcome the Secretary of State's saying that he is going to learn from Army boards of inquiry, because, as he knows, a second Army board of inquiry is due on my late constituent, Captain James Philippson.
	I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is aware of the financial implications stretching more broadly across other items of defence equipment. Will he take that down to the lowest common denominator—namely, not just equipment that is out there and may not be functioning correctly, but the absence of equipment that should be there?

Nicholas Winterton: The Nimrod aircraft was built at BAE Systems at Woodford; part of the site lies in my constituency. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and his assurance that all the recommendations will be implemented, as the crash was an absolute tragedy. However, will he not stand up for this wonderful aircraft that has done a magnificent job over the years? The R1 is still performing a brilliant role. Will he tell me, and all the work force still at BAE Systems at Woodford, that following this tragic accident, which I deeply regret—my condolences go out to the families of all those who were killed—the Nimrod will not be prejudiced in future purchases by the Ministry of Defence?

Bob Ainsworth: Mr. Haddon-Cave pays glowing tributes to all those who were associated with the Nimrod, and rightly so. The overwhelming thrust of his report—I have not managed to read every single page and every detail overnight—is not an attack on the aircraft itself in any way: it is an attack on the systems that have effectively let our people down.

Andrew Gwynne: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require rentcharge companies to notify annually residents subject to chief rent of their statutory right to redeem their charge under the Rentcharges Act 1977; and for connected purposes.
	I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a specific problem affecting properties in my constituency and a small number of others, and to provide a practical and, for the Government, cost-free method of resolving a long-standing problem. In short, I wish the existing law to be amended to allow for a tightening up of the regulations regarding chief rent charges and to prevent some of the bad practices that rentcharge companies have used on my constituents in recent years.
	I first raised the issue of rentcharges in my maiden speech, and since then I have been contacted by a large number of local residents who have been caught up in various chief rent scams and have quite frankly been conned out of money, often hundreds of pounds, by estate management companies. Greater Manchester is one of only a handful of areas in the country where chief rents were legally established. Chief rent is a perpetual charge, a form of ground rent that is charged on freehold properties by a previous landowner. It affects properties only in small parts of the country including parts of Greater Manchester such as Tameside and Stockport in my constituency.
	As with any charge, the resident is billed by the property company each year to pay the chief rent. It is often a very small sum of a few pounds a year, and because the charge remains at the level at which it was originally set in the deeds, it is of diminishing value in real terms to the rentcharge companies as time goes by.
	Under the provisions of the Rentcharges Act 1977, the freeholder can unburden themselves of any annual rentcharge created before 22 August 1977 by applying to make a lump sum payment through the relevant Government office. In the case of my constituents, that is the Government office for the north-west. The Act provides a formula that enables the Government office to calculate the redemption figure that the rent payer has to pay the rent owner in order to redeem their rentcharge. That figure comes out at roughly 14 times the annual chief rent.
	When the transaction has been completed, the Government office, on behalf of the Secretary of State, issues a redemption certificate to the rent payer. That provision was secured by intensive campaigning in the 1970s by a number of MPs, including my predecessor but one Ken Marks, who was the Member for Manchester, Gorton, in the days when much of my constituency was in that one. He also successfully campaigned to ensure that no new chief rents could be created after 1977 and that any rentcharges still in existence by 2037 would be automatically extinguished. However, those laudable changes unfortunately created some new challenges, as I will briefly explain to the House.
	For all the time that I have been an elected representative, first as a councillor on Tameside metropolitan borough council and since 2005 as an MP, I have been contacted by many local constituents who have been subject to various underhand tactics by unscrupulous management companies. In the past, I have launched campaigns to warn residents throughout Tameside and Stockport about various chief rent scams. In the most recent scam, letters were sent out by property companies to local residents, offering a "cut-price reduction" for homeowners to buy out their chief rent. One area where they targeted householders was the Dane Bank area of Denton, where the chief rents were set in the 1930s, generally at around £2 to £5 a year, depending on the size of the landholding. Had residents been made aware of the 1977 Government scheme, the average cost of buying out the rent would have been between £30 and £60 in total. The property company's offer was for people to pay around £350 but, in a twist, there was a "special offer" whereby that was reduced to £250 for a limited period. In essence, people were being fleeced for hundreds of pounds by those property companies.
	There are other examples of such practices. Companies sent out property surveys to see what improvements residents had made to their homes. When people filled out the details, they were hit with excessive charges for making alterations without having the rentcharge company's permission to do so, despite being freeholders. Such administration and penalty charges can also run into hundreds of pounds.
	It appears that that tactic is being used only on properties on which it is not now economically viable to collect the charge annually, so the companies are looking for other methods for raising income from the rentcharge. For years, rentcharge companies have been trying it on with residents, attempting to fleece them for as much money as they can, especially as the value of the rentcharge is worth less and less as time goes by. Frankly, it is outrageous that the companies can charge people for occupying land that, as freeholders, they own outright anyway. It is nothing short of a throwback to feudal times.
	Until the rentcharges are extinguished in 2037, I want to ensure that my constituents are made fully aware of their rights to buy the rent out using the existing Government scheme. I would hate for even more local people, particularly vulnerable groups, to pay over the odds. That is why I am presenting this Bill.
	My concern is that some residents who are unaware of the provisions in the 1977 Act will think that the £250 offers and the like are a good deal. I want to make local residents in Denton and Reddish, and elsewhere, aware that they can purchase their chief rent for a lot less money by filling in an application form and sending it to their Government office. That can be achieved very simply and at no cost by legally obliging all property companies to automatically notify residents of their rights under the 1977 Act to buy out their chief rent, in plain English and in a prominent way, when they send out demands for the charge each year.
	Back in 1977 when the Rentcharges Act was being debated, probably nobody anticipated how rentcharges would be abused. The small changes proposed in my Bill will ensure that people are correctly notified about their existing statutory right to purchase and buy out chief rents, and most importantly, give them the absolute confidence that they are doing so at the correct price.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That David Heyes, Ann Coffey, James Purnell, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Tony Lloyd, Graham Stringer, Mr. Graham Brady, Mark Hunter, Andrew Stunell, Mr. John Leech, Jim Dobbin and Andrew Gwynne present the Bill.
	Andrew Gwynne accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October and to be printed (Bill 154).

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the provisions of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 requiring the publication of local spending reports; believes that people have a right to know how their money is spent by public bodies; especially welcomes the assurances given by the then Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, that the local spending reports would include all public agencies; further welcomes the Minister's assurance that the purpose was to achieve a report that identified how much would be spent in each area by the authorities; is therefore very concerned by the limited information available in the local spending reports produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government; believes them to be a contravention of the expressed assurances of the Minister; and calls for proper local spending reports to be published, which will give effect to those assurances.
	Obviously, I appreciate the Secretary of State's apology for the non-availability of the written ministerial statement to hon. Members. However, I am sure that hon. Members share with me just a touch of incredulity that the consultation report is being produced on the very day of the Opposition day debate. That we do not have access to the information will obviously have an impact on the quality of the debate. It is right to record that. We accept the apology, but the impact remains.
	I shall proceed by setting out why we feel it is so important to revisit the issue of local spending reports and then spend some time looking at the implications of the Government's failure to implement local spending reports as they were originally conceived in the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. In conclusion, I will look at how the policy should be implemented and at how, as elected representatives, we should go further and faster in responding to the public appetite for transparency and efficiency.
	All hon. Members will be familiar with the history of the 2007 Act as many of us took part in its passage. As a Bill, it enjoyed genuine cross-party support and it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), whose private Member's Bill was responsible for the 2007 Act and who will wind-up the debate, and the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for all their hard work in getting this important piece of legislation on to the statute book.
	Of themselves, those tributes emphasise the cross-party nature of the support for local spending reports. It is also fitting to record our thanks to the tireless efforts of Local Works, which has done so much to drive support for the 2007 Act. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received letters and e-mails from their constituents expressing strong support for the legislation.
	Hon. Members will have noticed that the wording of today's motion is based on that of early-day motion 1064, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud. That early-day motion, like the original Bill, drew widespread cross-party support—254 signatures in total. In that spirit of cross-party working, let me say to Liberal Democrat colleagues how helpful it is for the debate that they have become co-signatories of today's motion. I, for one, hope that that bodes for a constructive and conciliatory debate—an example of the new politics that people want to see.
	To my mind, the reason why the Sustainable Communities Bill enjoyed so much support—not just in this House, but among the public—was that it was seen as a way of delivering a clear, tangible change in the balance of power between communities and their elected representatives. It was seen as a way of giving the people the tools with which they can better shape the communities where they live. Measures that could help to reverse the pattern of the development of ghost towns or to reduce local carbon emissions were seen to be strong moves in the right direction, and as a way to empower communities and give people more say over what happened in their locality.
	However, arguably, the centrepiece of the 2007 Act is section 6, which is on local spending reports, and I shall focus for a moment on why the spending reports are so significant. On the one hand, it is a matter of transparency and accountability, but on the other, getting a clear understanding about where money is being spent is the key to getting better use of financial resources. If local strategic partnerships, which we all support, are really to deliver, they need the information that would have been provided in the local spending reports and must be able to get their arms around the totality of local spending.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that in the case of Cumbria, the Local Government Association—presumably in collaboration with the Department—has managed to publish all of the relevant information, non-departmental public body by non-departmental public body and Department by Department? Does she agree that it is therefore likely that this information might already exist on the COINS—combined online information system—database and other Government databases?

Caroline Spelman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful information. Residents in Cumbria have access to the sort of information that we would all like to have. His intervention shows that providing such information is perfectly possible .
	The information is the bedrock for finding out where there is duplication, where spending can be pooled or better aligned to optimise efficiency, and where funds can be reinvested or redirected for a better outcome. These reports are integral to ensuring that we get more for the money spent. In this time of recession, the imperative for that has never been stronger. On that basis, it is no surprise that early-day motion 1064 attracted such support.
	Local spending reports are fairly innocuous in name, but hugely significant in nature. As colleagues will know, they were the key to unlocking the level of departmental spending in local areas. The clause provided for all public authorities to insist on local spending being publicised so that people could see where their hard-earned money was going, and if they wished, challenge it. Indeed, this was a clause lauded by Ministers at the time.
	The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), said:
	"Less of Whitehall calling the shots and more of men and women everywhere working with their council to set the agenda".
	The former Minister, now Minister for Borders and Immigration, said:
	"The fundamental point of the reports would obviously be to aid transparency and accountability, but I believe that they would also have the beneficial effect of prompting serious debate in local areas". ——[ Official Report, Sustainable Communities Public Bill Committee, 2 May 2007; c. 47.]
	Against that backdrop, people rightly had high expectations of the Bill.
	Age Concern and Help the Aged have publicly observed:
	"A breakdown of all public spending would ultimately be of great benefit to older people, particularly with regards to transparency about spending on things like benefits and public services in local areas."
	The National Federation of Women's Institutes has said:
	"We urge the Government to deliver on their promise to publish the full local spending reports which are so vital to the Sustainable Communities Act. Local communities can only effectively use their right to have a say in their local services if they know how the money which was raised from their taxes is being spent."
	The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
	"The voluntary sector fully supports the need for local spending reports as a breakdown of all public spending by local authority areas. This information would not only be valuable to voluntary organisations everywhere, it would also encourage more people to get involved in the Sustainable Community Act's exciting new processes."
	There are other endorsements from third-party organisations of the need for local spending reports.
	As a result, it may cause some consternation that colleagues find themselves having to use valuable parliamentary time today debating why the Government have watered down the scope of these vital local spending reports. In the consultation paper on spending reports, Ministers released details of a critical change so that the reports would now apply only to local authority spending and primary care trusts. To a large extent, that information is already available, but more significant than what the 2007 Act covers is what it does not cover. It is worth taking a moment to list those organisations missing from the current proposals for local spending reports. They include the Environment Agency; Natural England; Jobcentre Plus; the Health and Safety Executive; local probation boards; probation trusts; NHS foundation trusts; regional development agencies; the Learning and Skills Council; national health service trusts; Sport England; English Heritage; the Arts Council; the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council; the Highways Agency; and the Homes and Communities Agency.

Caroline Spelman: Once again, my right hon. Friend's observation about Cumbria shows that it is perfectly possible to provide such information for every area. The question is why that is not happening.
	This huge chunk of public spending, which is channelled through non-departmental public bodies, including RDAs, has been granted an exemption. So what started out as a means of shining a light on the way that public money is spent seems to have ended up as more of a dull fog concealing the truth. I am sure all hon. Members will share my concern that many supporters of the Bill will see that as a fundamental breach of trust. They will know from their constituencies that when Local Works campaigners held public meetings and signed up supporters, this halfway house is not what they had in mind, and the practical working of this compromised position has set back what pioneers of the Bill sought to achieve. It makes a nonsense of the time spent debating the Bill, with so much work put in by hon. Members, only to end up with such a large proportion of public spending being exempted. In essence, that fatally undermines the power that people have to scrutinise and challenge where their money is being spent.
	In my constituency, I am astonished that we are not able to find out where and when public money is being spent by our RDA. What I can ascertain is that significantly less public money is awarded to Advantage West Midlands than to One NorthEast—approximately half, to be precise. The figure is £55 per head in the west midlands, as opposed to £96 per head in the north-east for 2008-11. That will seem very strange to people in my area, which is so badly affected by the recession.

John Denham: The hon. Lady is obviously not speaking as a constituency MP but as her party's representative on these matters. May we take what you have just said as a clear indication that you would change the allocation of resources to RDAs on the lines that you have suggested? That would be very important news to many people—

Caroline Spelman: Most hon. Members find it an extraordinary afterthought that, so late in this Parliament, the Government have realised that there might be a problem with lack of accountability in the regional structures that they have tried to create. All of us understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with the regional structures that the Government have set up. My party would seek to solve that by returning powers to local government, where there is democratic accountability.
	At a time of recession, when households are having to account for every penny carefully, and our national debt is forecast to grow by £240 billion a year, it is all the more poignant that people cannot see where their money is going. Insulating quangos from public scrutiny will serve only to strengthen people's suspicion and distrust of quangos. They are seen as mandated by Whitehall to take the decisions that Ministers do not want their fingerprints on, and the bodies which spend taxpayers' money are free from interrogation.
	In recent years, the quango machinery has accelerated. In 2007, spending on non-departmental public bodies rose from £37 billion to £43 billion. That information comes from the Cabinet Office. There are now 1,152 quangos in the UK employing more than 500,000 people. The TaxPayers Alliance estimates that every year £90 billion of taxpayers' money is spent by unelected quangos—equivalent to more than £3,500 for every household. The fact that the best that we can obtain is an estimate is telling in itself. Surely, we should all be entitled to know exactly how much money is being spent. My sense is that, if anything, £90 billion is probably on the low side.
	Under the current regime, the figure will certainly be escalating. Let us take two examples with which the Secretary of State will be dealing. The Infrastructure Planning Commission is forecast to cost £10 million a year and will take the most controversial planning decisions out of the hands of elected representatives, but despite the scale of its finances and the impact of its decision-making power, it is not covered by the 2007 Act.
	Just when we thought that public patience with elaborate and unaccountable quangos, which have failed to deliver in important areas such as housing, had run out, the Government have put them on a life support machine in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. RDAs will now be spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on functions that they were never designed to deliver and taking decisions over some of the most controversial aspects of housing and planning. Yet RDAs, along with the rest of the quangos, have been exempted from the 2007 Act.
	At a time when every publicly funded organisation is having to demonstrate its value for money, I cannot believe that the RDAs welcome being veiled in secrecy. Ironically, the RDAs might be better placed to advocate their case if they were covered by the 2007 Act. The quango culture is of a piece with public suspicion that politicians seek to abrogate responsibility and spend taxpayers' money without recourse. That corrosive cynicism is undermining our democracy and we need an antidote to it. People need to know how much is being spent, by whom and on what. Could it be the case that at the back of the Government's decision to dilute the requirements for publishing spending, there is a genuine concern that people would be horrified at the level of waste? What is incontrovertible, however, is that opening up the books would enable people to see just how their area compares to others in the share of funding that it gets.
	Having set out how and why I believe that the Government have got it wrong in compromising the scope of local spending reports, I want to advocate how we might better match the reality of the 2007 Act with the rhetoric of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. For a start, we should honour the commitment given by Parliament to enact the legislation in full. As legislators, we should aim to meet not just the letter but the spirit of the legislation and really open up spending to local scrutiny and counter-bid.
	Hon Members on both sides of the House have sought opportunities to do this, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) recently tabled amendments to the Bill to that effect. Sadly, however, those were to no avail. It is clear, therefore, that if the public's desire for transparency in local spending is to be realised, it will take bold action. On my part, I believe that we should go further than the terms of the Bill, and that we should be bolder and even more radical in the quest to get transparency and accountability into public spending.
	The Conservative party has made it clear that under a Conservative Government councils would have to publish online details of all expenditure over £500—already some Conservative councils, such as Windsor and Maidenhead, do that. That will let people see, at the click of a mouse, how their local authority is using their money. The emphasis will be on making the data easy to access, easy to understand and easy to compare with other councils.
	That cannot be said of the current format in which the sustainable communities spending reports are being published. I consider myself to be fairly adept with Excel, and those reports are a cautionary lesson in making information at best opaque, and at worst simply indecipherable. However, the key to making those council spending reports valuable as a means of scrutiny is our pledge to abolish the entire regional tier of government and repatriate power to democratically elected councils. That would solve at a stroke the problem of regional bodies not being covered by the 2007 Act.
	Our approach of discharging as much power as possible to elected councils, rather than unelected quangos, will give real force to the power of publishing spending online. We would also go back to the source—the grant formula—and make it more transparent. That, along with the power of local referendums and our commitment to phasing out ring-fencing, would deliver a sea change in the way we do politics. We are intent on devolving real power to councils so that they can deliver on the priorities and needs of their communities.
	That approach is best summed up in our policy of giving councils a general power of competence—a power to enshrine the presumption that councils could, and should, be free to act in accordance with the wishes of the communities that they serve. However, in return, the communities deserve to be given the tools to hold those councils to account. They have to have at their disposal the information and the levers of power to challenge spending decisions and get things changed.
	Is that not at the heart of the original motivation behind the spending reports that we are debating? It is a silver thread that has been running for some time in various incarnations but with very limited success—from local area agreements, to local strategic partnerships, the 2007 Act and, most recently, the Total Place initiative. Sadly, however, none of those manifestations has delivered what we need, which is why we find ourselves here today. We are in the early days of the Total Place pilots, and Conservative Members are watching with interest to see whether the Government can crack it.
	It all goes back to the money, however. Bringing budget holders around the table can yield great results, but it is predicated on knowing what money is spent, by whom and on what.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I am glad to tell her that this intervention relates to Dorset, rather than Cumbria. Does she think it as important as I do that the Secretary of State explains how, in the Total Place pilot in Dorset, all Government agencies have been able to reveal their figures—this time, not published—to the other partnership authorities in Dorset?

John Denham: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
	"recognises the role of strong, accountable local government in delivering high quality local services and entitlements to services whilst ensuring value for money; welcomes Government investment, through local councils, in providing real help now to families; reiterates the importance of providing information about local spending and service quality to ensuring effective scrutiny and value for money; further welcomes the passage of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 and the Government's commitment to work with the Selector on its implementation, and believes that the first local spending reports published in April 2009 marked an important initial step in making local public spending more transparent; further welcomes responses to the consultation confirming the desire to see more data published; welcomes the Government's intention to extend local spending reports to cover all local public spending which can be readily provided in this format at reasonable cost; further welcomes the Government's proposals to extend local authorities' scrutiny of all local public service spending in their area; further welcomes the Total Place pilots mapping in detail all public spending in key services in 13 areas; further welcomes Sir Tim Berners-Lee's work advising Government on how best to make non-personal public data as widely available as possible; believes that these developments will enhance the Government's ability to provide local spending information in the most effective manner; and asks Ministers to report back to the House before the end of December 2009 on the next stages in developing local spending reports."
	This is an important debate. I want to go through what has been achieved so far and what the next steps are. I did not think that the speech by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) showed an enormous grasp of the nature of public data and how they are made available or of what has been done so far and what will be done in future. I regret that, because I believe that those public data are important. It is also important that we build on what has been done so far.
	There are clearly some conceptual difficulties. Whatever the merits of, for example, the Infrastructure Planning Commission—I think that they are considerable, but that is a debatable point and has been debated in the House—it is a national body, as is the Supreme Court. It had not occurred to me to previously that the Supreme Court should be covered by local spending reports. Presumably the spending should be divided by the number of local authorities and put into a report, but would it really help to subdivide what are essentially national institutions into local reports? The hon. Lady told us that the IPC and similar bodies—presumably including the armed forces and so on—should be included in local spending reports. However, we need a bit of clarity about the purposes behind the legislation, because that will enable us to look at what can reasonably be done in future.

John Denham: Given the support that the hon. Lady gave to Conservative councils to resist attempts to provide land for housing, she has some difficultly in trying to explain how that would provide the land needed for housing.
	The second point about local spending plans is that the Opposition would like there to be a lot less local spending. They are on record as saying that my Department should have its spending cut by £1 billion this year—not next year or when we look at deficit reduction, but this year. That is hugely damaging. I agree that making local spending information available is important, but it is also worth noting that the Conservative party fundamentally believes that there should be far less spending, although it has never been open and straightforward about its plan. The Opposition proposals are wrong, because they would damage recovery and lead to further huge cuts in housing, on top of their desire to block housing.
	The background to this debate is that Government Members believe in strong, accountable and effective local government, able to influence the whole of public service spending in its area. We believe in devolution on principle, but we also believe in it for a purpose: to deliver high-quality public services while making each taxpayers' pound work as hard as it can. We see devolution as a way of entrenching people's entitlements to public services and ensuring that they are delivered. The proposals that I set out last July to extend the scrutiny power of local government will ensure that councils and councillors have the power to challenge how every pound of local public service money is spent.
	The Conservatives couple the localisation of power with the abandonment of any concept of, or commitment to, the standards of service that citizens have a right to enjoy. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is a charter to make the postcode lottery the founding principle of conservatism in local government. The Conservatives have given the green light for "Ryanair councils", where people have to pay twice—once in tax and then in an extra tax—to get a decent service.
	I make that point because although the hon. Member for Meriden spoke a great deal about local spending, she said almost nothing about information on the quality of local services. That is not a surprise, because as part of their package, the Conservatives have promised to abolish targets, end standards and stop entitlements. They have also promised to stop inspections: they do not want to check on standards because there will not be any. Government Members support local spending reports, but I am sure that they agree that it is the outcome of the spending—the quality of service that our constituents receive—that matters most.

Stephen Dorrell: We can have a debate about local quality reports another day, but could we come to local spending reports—something to which the Secretary of State has so far made only glancing references? That is the subject of the motion on the Order Paper.

John Denham: The Conservatives are uncomfortable when it is set out in front of them what their policies mean for the quality of local public services, so I am not surprised that I am being urged to move on. I will do so, but it is important to put this on record. There is a great deal of interest in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill outside this Chamber, and it is important to put on record the fact that there is no cosy consensus between us and the Conservatives on the future of local government and of local government services; there is in fact a big divide.
	Before we knew the subject for today's debate, I had already arranged to speak at the Royal Society of Arts, and I gave a lecture there last Wednesday on the future of local government. If I may, I should like to read from the part of that lecture that is directly relevant to today's discussion. I said:
	"Public data is an essential tool in creating pressure to drive improvements in public services—on the old principle that knowledge is power. It puts all the information, and therefore the power, in the hands of users, service providers and would-be providers—including social enterprises. People should be able to compare the outcomes and the costs for their own local services with the services delivered elsewhere, and suggest means of improving and driving change. An open data policy as part of our broader efforts towards democratic renewal is important for creating a culture in which Government information is accessible and useful to as many people as possible".
	That is a statement of principle that I am happy to restate in this House. It is, of course, exactly what local spending reports are about.
	I want to set out what we have done so far, what the next steps will be and, crucially, how the Government's wider policies for the reform of local government, local public spending and public data openness will continue to transform the availability of public data. As the House knows, we have completed the first stage of local public spending reports. There has been some suggestion in this debate that the Government have in some way significantly deviated from promises made at the time the Sustainable Communities Bill was being discussed, and that we have backtracked on them. In the debate on 2 May 2007, the Minister then responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), rightly said:
	"The local spending report would cover all public expenditure in each local authority area in so far as it is possible to define it." ——[ Official Report, Sustainable Communities Public Bill Committee, 2 May 2007; c. 46.]
	In that same debate, which many hon. Members attended, he also entered a number of caveats— [ Interruption. ] This is relevant, because the suggestion has been made in this debate that the Government's response to that legislation was dishonest or disingenuous. It is therefore important to remind the House of the reasonable and practical qualifications that the then Minister made when talking about the public expenditure reports.

John Denham: I should like to make a little progress, then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
	My hon. Friend went on to say that he was talking about
	"expenditure that can be easily identified as relating to a particular area".
	I have previously made the point about the desire of the hon. Member for Meriden to include the Infrastructure Planning Commission in this, but it would be difficult in an annual report to identify how much of that expenditure related to a particular area. My hon. Friend went on to say:
	"We do not propose to create a new power to require additional information to be provided". ——[ Official Report, Sustainable Communities Public Bill Committee, 2 May 2007; c. 51.]
	He also said that the clause that was being discussed specified that the cost of producing the report must be limited.
	I do not believe that what we have today represents the end of the process. I am simply making the point that it was clear from everything that my hon. Friend the Minister said at that time that there would be some limits on the data that were initially provided as part of this process. The important thing about today's discussion is to determine how we move forward from where we are.

Oliver Letwin: It was in response to me that the then Minister made several of those remarks in that debate. The impression that he gave was very clear to all present, and it was confirmed in discussions outside the Committee room. It was that there would be detailed reports. There are detailed reports produced by others, which are based on Government information. That Government information has not been published. The Secretary of State cannot stand there and say that the Government have done what they committed themselves to do. I regret that, but that is the fact.

John Denham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and it is one that I wish to pursue in suggesting that the House support my amendment proposing a further report in December. I do not believe that the job is yet done in a number of areas.
	Let me refresh the House's memory on where we had got to. The first stage of local spending reports was published on 29 April. The data that they contained were wider than those originally proposed in the first consultation. Although the House has been told the opposite this afternoon, they include data on spending by the Department for Work and Pensions. That was not on the list, and the House has been told that it is not on the list, but it is on the list. In addition to principal local government spending, the data include police, fire, waste disposal, passenger transport, park authorities, strategic health authorities, ambulance trusts, NHS trusts, primary care trusts and spending by the DWP.
	That first stage covered the data that were held in Government at—or primarily at—principal local authority level, and which could be made available without incurring significant additional costs. There is an important point to be made here. It is at that local authority level that the focus of interest lies. The first port of call in the exercise involved the data that were already held in Government systems, aggregated at principal local authority area level, that could be made available.
	It is clear to everyone that a great deal of local public spending is not covered by the first stage of the reports. That is why we are having the debate this afternoon. Given my commitment to openness of data—and the statement that I made last week, when I was unaware that this debate was going to take place—I want to share frankly with the House some of the challenges involved in moving to the next stage.

John Denham: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited for just a moment longer, he would have heard me explain that these are serious and practical issues that are worthy of a proper debate. Given the experience of right hon. and hon. Members who will speak later, I hope that they will also address them.
	First, there is the question of how we characterise the spending that takes place physically in one area but serves a much wider area. Universities and prisons would be two contrasting examples. In one sense, leaving them out of the picture entirely is unsatisfactory, but pretending that the universities of Southampton and Southampton Solent are properly to be included only in Southampton's local spending report would be equally unsatisfactory. Some very significant areas of public spending do not fit neatly into local spending reports. It would be useful to hear in our debate—I am genuinely interested in this point—whether the mood of the House is that it would be better for this to appear as expenditure on two major universities in Southampton's spending report and nowhere else in the country, or whether it should be shared.
	The hon. Member for Meriden referred several times to quangos. One quango that has had its expenditure doubled in real terms under this Government is the Higher Education Funding Council; I used to be responsible for it. I was once, for my sins, a member of Hampshire county council's education committee in the 1980s when the then Portsmouth polytechnic and the Southampton institute of higher education were funded by local government. One of the best things that the previous Conservative Government ever did in education policy was to move those significant higher education institutions out of local government control in order to fund them centrally. We now have two significant additional universities in Hampshire that did not exist then, and they are much more successful because of the autonomy that they have gained.
	I make that point because an argument running through this debate is that quango expenditure is by nature illegitimate, funds nothing of any great value and should simply be included in local public spending reports.  [Interruption.] That was the gist of what the hon. Member for Meriden had to say. I do not accept that. When people outside hear the Conservative party attacking quangos in this way— [Interruption.] One of the reasons why the amount of money spent has gone up is because the Government have invested a lot extra in areas such as higher education. Of course the expenditure has gone up, but it is not a bad thing; this is what enables our constituents' children to go to university and benefit from it. I raise this as a serious issue for discussion: why should Winchester prison, or Southampton and Southampton Solent universities, for example, feature in a local spending report? I shall come on to some other examples in a few moments.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

John Denham: That would be one way of approaching it, although I fear that it might be misleading. The question of Cumbria has come up; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself may have raised it. There are two points to be made here—I shall come back to the second—and the one for this afternoon's debate, in which I have some interest, is that Cumbria's public spending includes expenditure at Sellafield. Everybody says that Cumbria has £7 billion of public expenditure—a figure that I have used myself in articles and debates. That appears to suggest, at face value, that public expenditure on public services in Cumbria is the same as in the city of Birmingham. I have to say that we must be careful in this process not to produce misleading results.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

John Denham: That is a possibility that we will certainly continue to explore. When I produce my report in December, I may well form a view on this. The idea, however, that expenditure on Southampton and Southampton Solent universities is a secret that our constituents would find enormously difficult to discover if they wanted to know how much money was involved, is also ridiculous. What I am most interested in doing here—I say this in all honesty—is producing data that meets the public need. An illusion is being pushed that vast areas of expenditure are somehow kept secret by the state, and that it is enormously difficult to find out about them—yet through a couple of clicks on the internet, it is actually not hard to find the published information available. My predecessors and I have taken this exercise as one of great importance for trying to produce genuinely relevant local spending information. That is what I would like to continue to do. Everything could be put in, but that would not necessarily advance the quality of information.

John Denham: This is an important issue. In my area, people in Southampton would be able to have that discussion, but people in Eastleigh would not, as they do not have a university. People in Winchester could have that debate—they have a university, or bits of a couple of universities—but not those in Eastleigh. I think that the hon. Lady would accept that it is a bit of an illusion to think that having this information is particularly useful.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset put forward a proposition: include the items in the figures somewhere and do not worry too much about where they are—Winchester has its prison and poor old Eastleigh loses out again—as long as they appear somewhere in the data. That is one way of approaching it, but I am honestly not convinced that this will prove enormously useful. I do not rule it out, as it might provide one way of dealing with some of this expenditure, but let us acknowledge that there are problems with it.
	I shall move on to an example that might find more common ground. The Court Service is another example of spending that serves a wider area, as is spending on skills in association with FE colleges and training providers. Those examples might be even more challenging for this process, because spending on skills, or on the criminal justice service, is spending in just the sort of areas where localities often argue that different priorities might be set. I accept that excluding those areas of expenditure in the long term is inherently unsatisfactory, which I believe was also the right hon. Gentleman's point.
	The second issue to deal with is that some categories of organisation do not hold their data in a way that easily relates to local authorities. If we are talking largely about capital spending, it switches location from year to year. For example, one particular year's report that included Highways Agency spending might not provide a great deal of information about the annual revenue flow or inflow from that organisation into a particular area. Again, we have to make a judgment about the value of information that comes in that sort of lumpy and essentially variable-over-time quantity.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful; the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely patient and considerate. What he has said throughout could be characterised in this way: he wants to manufacture information that he thinks will be valuable, but what we are arguing—collectively, I think, across the House—is that people as intelligent adults should be able to decide how to use the information in all sorts of ways that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor we can imagine. He does not need to worry about mollycoddling or nannying people into having the information that they "ought to have"; he needs only to provide such information as there is and let them get on with it.

Stephen Dorrell: rose—

John Denham: I entirely take the point, but the Opposition are so determined to be cynical that they are suggesting that I am giving reasons for not providing data, whereas I am actually exploring real issues relating to the effective production of local spending reports.
	A third problem is caused by data not being held in a way that correlates easily with local authority areas. Parties that wish us to cut our budget, as the Conservative party does, will recognise that a reasonable limit must be placed on the expenditure required to produce that data. That is precisely what the Minister said at the time of the debate that I mentioned earlier. Fourthly, as I also said earlier—I realise that this point is not a show-stopper, but it is important—the data that we are discussing give no indication of the quality of services or the outcome of public spending. I think it important for debate to focus on those issues at local level as well. Fifthly, as many respondents to our consultation on the next step pointed out, what people often want is much more "micro-area" data. Spending in local communities, rather than at an aggregate local authority level, can highlight disparities in investment and outcomes.
	Finally, the procedures laid down in the Act restrict us, essentially, to publishing data prepared and validated in line with the principles of the Office for National Statistics, which means that data that may be held by Government cannot be published until they meet that standard and may therefore be published some time after the event.
	One of the reasons why comprehensive spending reports have been published in Bournemouth, Cumbria and Birmingham, for instance, is that information has been made available by local partners who hold the information and are free to make it available. However, it is not produced to the same standard as the ONS statistics produced by Government. We are effectively limited. As has been pointed out, the quality of some of the local public spending picture is higher than we have been able to produce. The issue here is the necessary obstacle presented by the ONS standards.
	The consultation on the next stages received a somewhat disappointing response, mainly from local government. Only six non-governmental organisations responded, although they included Co-operatives(UK), the Public and Commercial Services Union and the National Housing Federation. However, there was a general desire for more information.
	I suggest that we move forward in a number of ways. The first step will be to revisit Government Departments and agencies to find out what further information could be made available at reasonable cost to supplement the existing spending report. I hope to have completed that work by the time I report at the end of the year. Judging by today's debate, I think that it should include considering the issue of lumpy and localised spending, which is of national and regional importance. However, I have expressed concerns about the value of some of those data.
	Secondly, we have received overwhelming support for our proposals to enable local authorities to scrutinise not just their own spending, but all local public service spending in their areas. Subject to detailed agreement across Whitehall, those plans will enable local authorities to scrutinise as much as £100 billion of public spending. Of course, they will be able to do so only if they have adequate spending information, and spending bodies will have to have a responsibility to co-operate with the scrutiny process. Local spending reports that we produce will support that process, but more and more immediate information should become available where it matters: in local areas. At present, because of the ONS issue, the sort of information that I expect to be made available to scrutiny committees may well be more up to date and comprehensive than any local public spending report would be at any particular time.
	Thirdly—as has been recognised today—the Government have established 13 local authority-based Total Place pilots, which are examining in great detail current public spending across different agencies on particular services such as provision for the under-fives, drug and alcohol services and young people's services. That detailed mapping of public spending means that, for the first time, people can ask whether investing the money differently might produce not just better value for money, but better outcomes. They can consider the possibility that investment in, say, the prevention of unwanted teenage pregnancies might produce savings somewhere down the line in child care support, or that investment more generally in preventive health or substance misuse services might produce benefits down the line. We all want to see that happen.
	Although Total Place is a pilot at present, many other areas are running similar initiatives. I believe that that approach—looking at every pound of public service spending in each area—is really gathering support. In many ways the Total Place was anticipated by the Sustainable Communities Act, but in many ways it is also potentially more comprehensive and more ambitious.
	Part of our investment in Total Place is intended to enable local services to identify spending and outcomes at a much more detailed, and arguably more useful, level than the local authority level of local spending reports. It is often when one is able to identify the level of investment in a particular estate, community or target group of citizens that it is possible to identify whether public money is being used to best effect. One of the things that we will learn through Total Place is how data of that kind could be made much more widely available.
	A number of Members asked earlier how it had been possible to make such information available in Bournemouth and in the Birmingham area, where I believe it shows public expenditure of £7.2 billion. First, we have provided extra financial support for the Total Place pilots to enable them to identify the data. Secondly, the data are not readily held by central Government in every circumstance. They are held by local partners, which is not a bad thing. There has been a general desire to reduce the level of reporting to central Government. However, I believe that that illustrates that we need to build on the Total Place pilots and see what lessons can be learned about making the data more widely available.
	I think Members will agree that that local overview of public spending should be made available to professional managers of services and policy makers at local level, and to councillors who are involved in scrutiny. I also believe, as I said at the outset, that it should be made available to the public. The challenge that we face is to find a way of making these much more comprehensive local area spending data more widely available.
	That is where the fourth strand of reform comes in. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has asked Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the original developer of the internet, to lead a project on making public data more readily available. The opening of his terms of reference makes the aim of that work clear:
	"the Government is committed to implementing and to extending to the wider public sector the principle that public sector information should be available under straightforward licences and in standard formats for others to re-use: the principle that public sector information should be public."
	The House will be pleased to learn that one of the key subsidiary aims of the project is to drive a culture change in Whitehall towards an assumption of total publication of anonymous data using open standards.
	That work clearly does not just complement the local spending reports. I believe that it holds the potential to go much further, with Government and local government data becoming much more readily accessible on a much faster time scale and in a format that is more readily open to interrogation and investigation. That is relevant to a point made by the hon. Member for Meriden.
	I have made it very clear that I want my Department and local government to participate enthusiastically in this important work. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is supported in it by Professor Nigel Shadbolt of Southampton university. I have met Professor Shadbolt, and hope to agree soon—certainly by the time of my progress report in December —on how we will participate.

Caroline Spelman: rose—

John Denham: I chair the cross-Government ministerial committee on Total Place. For me as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, it is enormously helpful to have the Treasury fully engaged in this project. Let me make the following important point, however. There are 13 formal pilots, but anybody who, like the hon. Lady, is out and about meeting people in local government or reading the local government press will know that many other projects are basically do-it-yourself Total Place pilots. That shows that the reality is that there is a deep understanding in many areas of the public services that the next great public service reform challenge is breaking down the barriers between different public services and then having the ability to switch investment from one area of spending to another in order to produce the best possible outcomes.
	There is to some extent frustration. I can sense it from Opposition Members and I do not think it is misplaced. The frustration is that when partners voluntarily get together at local level, in the vast majority of cases they have the legal ability simply to share information—such as their current operating data, or their current financial systems—in order to come up with a total picture of what they are doing. We in central Government are constrained at present in respect of pushing out data because we all wanted ONS to be independent and our statistics to be verified and not to be used by Ministers for nefarious purposes—not that we would ever do so. Those partnerships are operating on real current financial operating data. At the risk of going slightly beyond any agreed Government policy, let me say that we must somehow find a way to get that much more timeous data out into the public domain at local level. I believe that in the time to come the framework we have for local spending reports will enable us to go further than at present, but I think we would probably all accept that in terms of the cutting-edge work that is taking place on mapping public expenditure at local level, some of the most interesting work is being done around the Total Place pilots. I am not putting Total Place to the House as an alternative to local public spending reports. I am, however, saying that we should acknowledge that there is some very interesting and exciting work taking place throughout the country which we should all want to build on in the future.
	Let me now summarise. I share the belief that openness in public data is important to driving public service reform and improving the quality of local public services. We have made a good start in local public spending reports; I do not share the criticism expressed today of how far we have gone. I believe, however, that we can go further, even though there are some real issues to be tackled, and the Government amendment suggests I should report back to the House on this before the end of the year.
	At the same time as reporting back on where we go next on local public spending reports, we should recognise three important developments since the passage of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 that have the potential to take this work much further forward: first, our proposals to extend widely the scrutiny powers of local government to cover local public spending areas; secondly, the development of Total Place, and the understanding it will give on how best to map spending and outcomes at local, including community, level; and thirdly, the Government's wider work to make public data available to common standards on the internet. Taken together, I believe those areas of work will over time produce an outcome that exceeds the original ambition of the Sustainable Communities Act, but also one that is very much in keeping with it.

Julia Goldsworthy: At the start of the debate, there was talk about consensus on this issue, but the consensus has clearly broken down—although it may have started to return towards the end of the Secretary of State's remarks. I have been struck by the extent to which the debate has descended into a process-driven discussion. One reason why it is such a privilege for me to have another opportunity to discuss the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which is dear to my heart, is that the matter is much more fundamental than that.
	The Sustainable Communities Bill was the first Bill that I presented to Parliament after being elected. It carried on the work of Sue Doughty, a former Member for Guildford, who initially took the Bill forward. Ultimately, this legislation is on the statute book because of people power alone—the power of grassroots campaigning and local organisations in being able to vocalise the barriers to delivering what they consider to be the priority measures in their area. That is what the legislation is about.
	I looked back at the remarks made by the Minister with responsibility for the matter in the final stages of the passage of the 2007 Act. He said that the 2007 Act would not necessarily catch the public's eye as had some private Member's Bills, such as one presented by David Steel, but that it was about fundamentally changing relationships and that it had the potential truly to affect the balance of power between central and local government. That is of particular importance to me, and it is the reason why I got involved in politics—I was frustrated that the voice of people living in my local community was not being heard, and I wanted to change that. What I have heard today from the Secretary of State is an argument that central Government know best, and from the Conservative Benches that local authorities know best. In fact, this is all about people knowing best and giving them the right channels to communicate that and to take control themselves.
	I wonder whether the Government are slightly uncomfortable about dealing with this issue, because it is about a fundamental shift in power. It is for that reason that so many people had such high hopes for this legislation. It is important to remember that the local spending reports issue is about not only providing information, but enabling participation. We can put all the information that we like on the internet, but it is completely pointless if it is not a platform for allowing people to engage, to have input and to make a difference. That is the fundamental point to remember, and it is why so many people are so frustrated and disappointed with what we have seen so far.
	Local spending reports are at the heart of the 2007 Act. They are based on the principle that people have a right to know not only what money is being spent, but how it is being spent, because once they have that information, they will have a view on how the money could be better spent addressing their priorities. From that flows the whole process of enabling communities to make proposals to remove the barriers that have been preventing them from having a say in the process until now.
	I was slightly bemused by the Secretary of State's characterisation that what is preventing local spending reports from being published at the moment is the fact that all the information has to be reported all the way up the line and back in order to be published in some kind of tabulated format, because that is not the case. My understanding of what is happening in the Total Place pilots is that the role of central Government is in twisting the arm of the local side of public service delivery—the agencies do not want to produce the information, which they have locally—to make the information available. There is no reason why local spending reports cannot be produced on exactly the basis that I am outlining.

John Denham: I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with a point that I made. Government publication of statistics is now governed by procedures and rules, which have broadly been agreed with this House, about independent assessment by the Office for National Statistics. Most of the data that are made available in the Total Place pilots are perfectly good and usable at local level, but they are not of sufficient quality to enable the Government to publish them in the official form of spending reports. That is a frustration—it is not something that I welcome—but the House will understand the general concern about government use of public data, which led to the procedures. That is why we need to examine how more information could be made directly available locally.

Julia Goldsworthy: I do not want this to be a debate about the best process for making this information available; the debate needs to be about agreeing that people have the right to see this information and then to have an impact on any decisions flowing from its being made available. I do not see any need for the Government to be the ultimate national publisher; they just need to unlock the information being made available locally, and nothing in the 2007 Act prevents that from being the case.
	We need this information because of the complete lack of transparency in public spending at the moment, nowhere more so than in local government matters, as can be seen even if one looks simply at how money is raised and spent locally through council tax—about 80 per cent. of what councils spend is not raised through council tax. That confuses everybody, because people cannot understand why their council tax increases by more than inflation every year, yet it appears that council services are being cut. This is all to do with the confusion created by the system, which multiplies out to all aspects of local public service delivery.
	Anything that provides greater transparency is important. The issue is about more than just councils, because the most interesting thing is that the information provided at the moment through the local spending reports, which covers a large number of big-spending organisations locally, deals with so little spending; the reports do not cover the majority of public spending locally. Some 65 per cent. of the money spent locally is not included in the public spending reports, and that constitutes very large sums. If taxpayers' money is being provided to deliver these services, taxpayers have a right to know this information.
	This is not just about some of the big quangos. Part of the frustration with quangos is their lack of accountability and transparency; the argument is not necessarily about whether they are the correct delivery vehicle, but about the fact that they are remote and unaccountable, and that nobody understands how they work. The same can be said of local arrangements—one of the most confusing things in Cornwall is the number of area-based initiatives. It is not just about what the regional development agency or the primary care trust spends; it is about the fact that lots of small initiatives are funded in a targeted way, each having their own administration. They probably have competing, conflicting and overlapping aims and objectives, and the situation results in a fragmented approach. Delivering local spending reports in a way that is meaningful to people could help to overcome that.
	Local spending reports are intended to get all this information out into the open in a public format with which people can engage. They are about starting the process of breaking down silos. One of my concerns about the Total Place pilots, as they are at the moment, is that they are very much an internal process—they are about taking the lead with the local strategic partnership. This should be about trying to engage people, not about just getting the relevant civil servants at the local level sitting around a table discussing how their budgets could be better spent. This is about getting the consumers of public services to have a say in how the money could be better spent.
	We are in different economic circumstances from the time when the 2007 Act was initially proposed, but all these issues are more important now, not less. I have heard several people say that producing this information will be expensive, but everything I have read about the Total Place pilots suggests that what is exciting Ministers so much about the pilots is their ability to reduce waste caused by duplication and to focus on priorities. I am confident that if the process is properly rolled out, it will more than pay its own way, as well as encouraging more participation locally, and it will also protect some of the multi-agency working that is done locally. My greatest fear is that as public services budgets get squeezed, as I am already seeing happen locally, the first thing to go will be cross-agency working, which delivers some of the most innovative projects that make the biggest difference to people's lives.
	My concern is that when budgets are squeezed, public services retreat to their core; everything that is not considered to be core to the service is got rid of, and so the silos get reinforced again. Producing this kind of information will be key to preventing that invidious move, which undermines the delivery of local public services. This speaks for itself—it is a no-brainer. Even the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who was the Minister when we debated that Bill, gave very good examples of how the least obvious thing could help to make a massive improvement to people's lives. I believe that he referred to the example of the Blackburn slipper, whereby a group of organisations locally agreed to buy every pensioner a pair of slippers. That saved the health service locally a fortune, because it prevented falls, and that would not have been achieved in any other way—other than by sitting down at a table and discussing it. It is exactly that principle that we should be following through.
	It is because of all these potential benefits that people have been so disappointed. Let us consider the initial responses to the consultation. One response stated:
	"What is now proposed in the consultation document falls short of the original intention."
	Another respondent said that they were
	"concerned that these local spending reports do not go beyond what is already in the public domain and that local spend by central government...is conspicuously absent."
	There is real frustration that those expectations were not being met and that some key areas of local public spending were not being included.
	The Secretary of State spoke about the challenges of trying to decide which information to include and which not to include, and he mentioned prisons and universities. I reiterate that the people who live in our areas have brains and are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not university spending will probably have an immediate, beneficial knock-on effect on the local economy, on jobs and on other public services. People need to be able to make their own judgments. It may well be that some local spending will be ring-fenced and people will say, "That was on a strategic transport route, so that is investment that you cannot have a say on, because it is part of the national infrastructure." However, that does not mean that people should not have the right to see that that money has been spent in that way. No conflict is involved here, so we do not need to get worked up and have any angst about what we should include or exclude. The presumption should be to include everything but, if necessary, to add a caveat saying, "This can be a subject of scrutiny and debate, but not of reallocation."
	The fact that all this is so self-evident and obvious is why I feel so frustrated and mystified at the Government's response so far, and it seems to be the same at every stage of the process when we try to deal with the matter. It was frustrating when we tried to raise these issues in our debate on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill the other week—one would think that that was the most appropriate place to raise precisely these issues—that the Government seemed intent that they were the last thing that they wanted to discuss.
	We have had a written statement today that was not on the Order Paper and that so far still has not materialised. It would have been very helpful to the debate. We still do not have a clear timetable—we do not know whether we will have any kind of local spending report next year, and we will now have to wait until December. The Sustainable Communities Bill became an Act in 2007. It is amazing that we have seen such progress on Total Place in such a short time, but such slow progress in the implementation of the 2007 Act.
	What has been most frustrating is the complete failure of the Department to try to communicate with the thousands of people who have made a personal investment in the implementation of the 2007 Act. Ultimately, everyone in this Chamber wants to address the fundamental disconnect with politics and politicians, and people and organisations have put themselves forward and said, "This is something that we think can address this disconnect." The way in which they have been treated has made matters worse rather than improved them.
	Those people feel that they are being treated in a way that borders on contempt—contempt for the legislation, for the campaigners and for the councils that have invested in this process to such a great extent so far. Let us consider the levels of participation from the councils that have put forward proposals at this date: 28 per cent. of English authorities are taking part in this process, which I think is amazing in such a short period of time for something that is not statutory. Some 42 per cent. of Lib Dem-led authorities are taking part, and there have been more than 100 proposals from different councils. The Government should be heartened by that and should be using it as a springboard to try to take things further, rather than saying, "That process was not invented here, so we will now come up with a parallel process that we like more, because we invented it rather than somebody else."
	We also have to remember that a lot of councils will be waiting to see what will happen next. I remember speaking to one of my local councillors when the 2007 Act was being debated. A real paradigm shift is needed not just for central Government but for local government to understand the potential offered by the legislation. My local councillors could not get their head round the fact that they were entitled to have a view on aspects of public services that were not already their responsibility. An awful lot of councillors will be waiting to see what happens to the proposals that have been put forward, and that will spark off other ideas that will enable them to take more responsibility and to innovate in a way that has not been possible until now.
	None of that will be possible unless we have local spending reports, in whatever shape or form—whether they look more like the Total Place pilots or are along the lines envisaged by the Secretary of State—and unless we have that financial information. Power cannot be transferred down if the opportunity to have a say about what happens to the money is not transferred down, too.
	My greatest fear, which has unfortunately been reinforced by what I have heard today, is that the Government's attitude will remain that they have a problem with proposals because they were not invented here and because we cannot put them into a nice, simple, one-size-fits-all approach. There are real issues about relinquishing power and control, and I am not sure whether the Government are up for dealing with them. That was reinforced by the debate that we had and the debate that we did not have on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.
	Ultimately, it seems that the Government's perception of participation is to set out in primary legislation how councils should respond to petitions, to create more bureaucracy, quangos and unaccountable organisations, such as economic prosperity boards, to give more powers to regional development agencies and not to introduce devolution but, at best, to delegate more powers. That is not the same as devolution. It does not give communities greater decision-making powers but ensures that central Government decisions are implemented at a more local level. That is fundamentally different, and it is not localism. I hope that the rest of this debate will be an opportunity for the Government to prove me wrong for making these assumptions. I hope that they do, because the 2007 Act is really important to me, and it is really important to restoring people's faith in democracy more widely.
	Will the Minister or the Secretary of State confirm that the December 2009 deadline for the next stages will be debated and voted on in this House, and that we will not simply get a statement? Will we get a timetable for action? Will they confirm that we will get local spending reports and details of their format annually? Will they confirm in December 2009 the ongoing implementation of the 2007 Act? Will the Minister be able to confirm that the benefits of the Total Place pilots will be opened up to other authorities—perhaps those adjacent to those which are taking part—that might want to participate and benefit? Will the Minister also commit to extending this process to the local authorities that are closest to their communities—that is, our town and parish councils?
	Given that this has been a grass-roots campaign from the start, it is really important that anybody watching the debate—I am sure that many people who have supported the campaign will be watching it—is convinced that their voice counts. It is very important that the Government do that this afternoon, in order to restore faith in our democratic process.

David Drew: I am grateful that you have called me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, given the massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers, it has been difficult to find a slot in which I can deliver my speech. I notice that my two co-conspirators on the 2007 Act both sit on the Front Bench, whereas I sit in a lofty position on the Back Benches.
	I feel some responsibility for the Act. I cannot pretend that I was its parent—that was the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd)—but I like to think of myself as its uncle. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) could be its auntie. I enjoyed the process so much that I tried to become a parent in my own right, by promoting the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill. Sadly, I was not a very successful parent—it seems to have been stillborn—but I hope that if and when we move the 2007 Act forward, the Bill, which, importantly, clarifies the spending reports, tries to bring parish councils in and rolls forward how future programmes can operate, can be introduced.
	I think that we have been a bit churlish. As someone who is not necessarily known as the most loyal Labour Back Bencher, I think that the Government have listened. The Department for Communities and Local Government, in particular, has made some moves. Obviously, it needs to go further and we will prompt and prod it to ensure that it does. However, it has made some moves, and although the Government's amendment to the motion is a bit overlong—as I said, it took me a long time to read it last night—the most important part of it is the last line, which states that the Government will produce their response by December. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has said, we will hold the Government to that.
	It would be nice to know how the Government— [ Interruption. ] Have I said something that I should not have? All the officials are going already. When the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), sums up, she must make it clear how the Government intend to respond by December. It would be worthy of a debate, and perhaps even a vote—that would be revolutionary, would it not? We need to be clear about what stance the Government are taking and how they intend to inform us appropriately. I hope that my hon. Friend explains exactly how we can trust that the Government have moved, that they are listening and that they want to get away from an entirely process-driven arrangement to one that has some meat on the bones. I say that as a vegetarian; we all have to be vegetarians now, of course.
	We need to be a bit more altruistic and to recognise that the arrangement has been a good one. Cross-party work is greatly underestimated. We were only the forebears, as the Local Works campaign was relentless in driving the legislation forward. I give credit where it is due: the campaign has made sure that we did not slip and it is reasonably happy with the compromises that are being made. However, it is up to all of us to make sure that those compromises do not become soggy and that they have some real bite. That is what I intend to do, and I shall continue to play that part in negotiations outside the Chamber.
	I want to say a few words about the local spending reports, which have not really been mentioned so far. We have spent a lot of time talking about what we are trying to do, but the reports are the basis for this debate and for the implementation of the legislation— [ Interruption. ] I am getting worried now, as I see my friendly Whip has come to look at me.
	I have gone through the reports, and the reality is that they range from the dotty, undeliverable and downright unfair on the one hand to the utterly inspiring and really exciting on the other. It is important that we do not lose track of they fact that the Local Government Association must do a good job as the selector, and that is a task that it needs to get on with. Those of us who have been engaged in the process, and the people in the Local Works campaign, have had to knock the door down from time to time, but I hope that the Minister summing up the debate will say something about how we can be used as a source of knowledge for making sure that selection is as transparent and meaningful as possible.

David Drew: Absolutely, and I take in good faith what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in that regard. We need to get this right, but that will not necessarily be that easy and we will not get it right first time. Let us be realistic: this is an evolving and complicated process. We are trying to force central Government to come to terms with giving out spending information. I think that the Department for Communities and Local Government understands that, but I am worried about other Departments. DCLG should be given every encouragement in this debate to poke and prod, and to ask, request and demand the necessary information, because without it the legislation will fall down. If we are not careful, we will encounter the usual reluctance—from the Treasury, dare I say it?—with the result that the information that we want will not be forthcoming.
	I say let us get behind DCLG and give it every encouragement. Let us look at the new politics and make sure that the Department is given every opportunity to make this piece of legislation work.
	Some of us are still struggling a little bit with how the Total Place campaign relates to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. If someone could spell that out, it could not but help. If Total Place is a good model that we could extend and expand into the wider operation of the Act, we should get on and do it. We must make sure that there are not two processes that collide with one another and cause confusion. Some people are lucky enough to be in the pilot areas—and yippee for them—but it would not be right if the rest of us were to be merely marginal players and regarded as an afterthought.

David Drew: I take that as read. The hon. Lady is my hon. Friend in this respect, and the people involved in those pilots have to read the legislation just as she and I have to. As I said, the process will evolve: it will not necessarily be right first time, but we have to get it right because we have to make people confident that the process is meaningful. It must engender belief that there is trust between local government and national Government—and, more importantly, between other players. We have not said an awful lot about the other agencies that we need to engage with, and I am talking, of course, about those in the voluntary sector.
	If we get the process right, the greatest winners will be people in the voluntary sector. People in the statutory sector often say that an idea is great but that it cannot be done as there is no funding to lock it in place, but the legislation means that people in the voluntary sector will be able, for the first time, to insist on an examination of how public money is spent.
	Passenger transport offers a real-life example. We all know that there are countless minibuses rushing around taking all sorts of people to different venues, but I am pleased to say that the local spending reports cannot but allow things to be done better, more effectively and in a fairer way. That is something that we need to get in place. We need to argue for it, and hope that the programme goes forward.
	In this House, adversity and argument have their place but they are not always the best way to make progress. Sometimes we need to try and find compromise and consensus. In the end, we have to take a cross-party approach, as there are so many different elements involved. We all know that we cannot necessarily rely on our friends in local government to see things in exactly the same way that we, in our lofty position, see them. We have to work things out in a way that ensures that everyone gains.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the Regional Select Committees, which I think have been an interesting experiment. They can be a bit lonely, particularly when they are not quorate and people have to be dragged in. That is a pity, and there is nothing more to be said about that, but they can be interesting when people are brought in to give evidence. In areas such as transport and health, and certainly environmental protection, it makes a lot of sense to have a body that looks beyond immediate localities and considers an area which, whether we like it or not, could be called a region. We need a grown-up dialogue about how we can make sense of that and get some proper consultation—and more particularly some transparency when it comes to accountability—at that level.
	I will support the Government tonight— [ Interruption. ] Or even this afternoon: it just feels like tonight, and I should not rush to the next debate. I believe that what those of us who have been involved in the campaign on this matter have done is negotiate, argue and persuade. We have tried to take the Government along with us.
	I know that there has been consternation in some parts of the Government about the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which they see as wishy-washy stuff. It has taken quite a lot of effort to persuade people that it is a meaningful bit of legislation and that it is not outwith other aspects of the Government's agenda. We believe that it could be central to many of the things that we want, and it is really exciting. That is something that I do not want to lose: the Act is really exciting and meaningful, and I hope that the debate will help us to make it more so. That is better than being distracted by churlish point-scoring, which is not at all helpful.

Stephen Dorrell: I want to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on introducing this subject. She has followed up the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) in getting this very important piece of legislation on the statute book, and making certain that the aspirations expressed in it are not allowed to rest on the shelf but are followed through.
	The subject of the debate, local spending reports, sounds dry and bureaucratic, but it is nothing of the kind. It certainly is not a wishy-washy aspiration—the phrase which was not used by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) himself, but which he reported as being used by others. This is a debate about access to and use of power. For that reason, it is hugely important.
	In his closing passage, the Secretary of State referred to the importance of Total Place, which develops many of these ideas, as one of the major reform programmes for the future of public services. I entirely agree. This is a debate about power. When the Secretary of State moved off his introductory rant about planning policy and got on to the subject of the debate, what was revealed was an important consensus between those on the two Front Benches—a consensus of rhetoric and a consensus of aspiration—to ensure that information is made available about the level of spending in each locality, in order that we can embark on the kind of reform programme implicit in the Secretary of State's references to Total Place.
	So far, so good. There is, across the party political divide, a shared aspiration. There is certainly shared rhetoric. The reason my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden was right to call the debate is that although there is shared rhetoric and shared aspiration, the Government must be accountable for the pace of advance towards achieving the aspiration set out in the 2007 Act, which we are impatient to see carried through.
	When put under pressure on specific aspects of the delivery of local spending reports, the Secretary of State repeatedly retreated into the proposition, "This is a first step. We'll do better. There's a further report in December. Please refer to my lecture of last week. I'm on your side really. I'm in the jungle and lots of people are against me."
	I suspect that that is an accurate description of the right hon. Gentleman's position. His predecessors signed up on behalf of the Government to making the information available in order to achieve a transfer of power and, surprise, surprise, when the Secretary of State now tries to deliver on that aspiration, by making the information available—in his own words, in a timeous fashion—he is encountering the classic Whitehall resistance programme: "It's frightfully difficult, old boy. We don't collect information in quite this form. It's terribly expensive. It would be very time consuming." Anybody who has spent any time in a Whitehall office has heard it before. It is like drawing teeth.
	That is the central charge that my hon. Friend makes against the Government—not that there is not a desire in the fullness of time to see the reform as a good thing, but that from the outside there is a sense that the delivery of the aspiration is disappointing. Looking step by step at the stages that we are going through, and the arguments that are being used, it feels like drawing teeth against Sir Humphrey.

Stephen Dorrell: I could not agree more. It was the hon. Lady who stressed the importance of the programme as a power transfer. It is a power transfer in the spirit of the times, but it is a power transfer with which people in Whitehall do not feel very comfortable.
	I want to substantiate my sense that the delivery of the aspiration is like drawing teeth. I accept that the Government are now on this square, but it was only at the second attempt that the Government included the Department for Work and Pensions budget in the local spending report. What on earth is the sense of trying to get the Government to look across departmental boundaries if we do not include the DWP budget in the project? But the Government did not get there the first time; they only got there the second time.
	Then there is the list of exemptions that are still not included in the current proposals for local spending reports. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State about the probation service. He did not even try to defend its exclusion. He as good as said that he agreed with me and that it would not be on the list next time. Let us go through one or two of the others—for example, the Learning and Skills Council.
	Why on earth is the Learning and Skills Council even claiming the right to exemption? It would be slightly different if it said, "Sorry, we are not here now, but we will be here in a couple of months when we have sorted out the practical difficulties", but we are being asked to accept, at least on the face of it, that the LSC should not be part of local spending reports. I do not accept that. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State is not prepared to say on the record that he does not accept it, either.
	Another offender on the list is an institution for which I used to be responsible a long time ago, the Arts Council. There is not a shred of a reason why the Arts Council England should claim an exemption from the process. I know exactly why it is on the list. It is because it is embarrassed about the scale of funding that goes to the Royal Opera House and the London symphony orchestras, and the focus on London. It has its own private reasons for not wanting to see that information revealed. Who does the Arts Council think it is kidding? We know who the recipients are of Arts Council funding. Why does it almost draw attention to that by claiming exemption from such a programme? I could go on through the list, but I will not detain the House by doing so.
	We are embarked on something that is important. There is a genuine will—a genuine willingness, at least—on both sides of the House to see the programme pursued. What we looked for from the Government, and the reason why the Opposition motion is rightly critical of them, is not simply a feeling of good will towards something that is a good thing, like apple pie and motherhood, but a willingness to fight battles to achieve the publication, because what we are seeking to achieve is a transfer of information, and therefore of power, from central Government to local government, and a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to recognise that that battle will not be fought and won without his full-hearted consent and willingness to engage on behalf of an important principle.
	The Total Place initiative in my constituency, in Leicester and Leicestershire, which is led by David Parsons, focuses on drug and alcohol services. There is no better example of a set of services that have for a long time been the prisoner of interdepartmental barriers and the inability to use funds from one budget in support of a relatively small group of vulnerable people across departmental boundaries.
	I am delighted that Leicester city council and Leicestershire county council are embarked on a Total Place project to try to break down those barriers, but that makes no sense if the probation service and the youth offenders service are exempt from the process of empowerment through publication of information and, more positively, because drug and alcohol services are not just about treating the immediate need; they are also about improving life chances. How is it possible to deliver improved life chances for people suffering from drug and alcohol problems if it is not permitted to look across the fence into the LSC, the youth sports council and other services of that nature?
	The Leicester and Leicestershire Total Place project is a very good step in the right direction, but it is also a good illustration of what is wrong with the Government's delivery of their promise on the publication of information. We look to the Secretary of State to read his own lecture, to believe his own rhetoric, and to fight battles on behalf of the people who will benefit from the improved delivery of public service that will result from the successful delivery of those aspirations.

John Howell: I think that I am the only hon. Member to speak who was not here when the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 was introduced. At that time, I was doing pioneering work as a county councillor in Oxfordshire to try to work out how spending could be allocated and understood in terms of my own division and the major settlements within it. Although that information was not readily available in the sense of being kept in that form all the time, it was not difficult to make that information available and to bring it together. That allowed me to look at how much was spent, particularly in the poorest village, and that was not simply to answer the question, "What do I get for my council tax?", but to answer the question that others were asking, "Is the spend in the right place?"
	When I listen to and read the statements from some of the agencies that have been too frightened to engage in the process, I imagine that the same arguments must have been run at the time of universal suffrage: do we trust the people enough to be able to grant them the vote? Exactly the same argument runs behind this: do we trust people to have the information? In the case of the information that I produced for my county council division and the conversations that I had, I had every right to trust people with that information. By and large they did not ask why they had or did not have a certain amount of money; they engaged in a much more intelligent debate about the priorities for the area and where was the best place for that money to be spent.
	One of the issues that I had to deal with was raised by the Secretary of State—how to decide on the allocation of spending where it affected more than one area. The answer was simple. A judgment has to be made, the criteria are decided and those are the criteria that are made available. The issue at that micro-level concerned bus subsidies. The subsidy on a bus route clearly benefits the length of the bus route and the people who live along it, whether they are in a state of need or not. I took the view that the bus subsidy should be allocated to the place where it had the most social effect, for which it was designed. Everyone understood that. It was understood by the richer neighbouring villages, and there was no disagreement.

John Howell: The hon. Lady is right. My point, to reinforce the comments that have been made, is that it is necessary to decide and to be open about the criteria that are used.
	The need for such information is even more crucial in an age of partnership. Many of us who were in local government when the partnership regime came in were quite cynical about it and about the democratic deficit, but having lived with it and seen it, I appreciate the enormous advantages of being able to organise services on a much better basis. However, it can still be opaque. For example, the use of pooled budgets provides little in the way of transparency, both about what is sought to be achieved and about the money that goes into them. What is missing from that is not so much the idea of pooled budgets, but aligned budgets, which again comes back to transparency and the need to ensure that everyone understands that.
	The Total Place experiment has been mentioned, and I was particularly interested in that. Criticisms of the programme have largely been seen as practical, but in evidence to the Public Bill Committee on the Child Poverty Bill, the leader of Kent county council says that while he is
	"a great supporter of the Total Place concept, which is about joined-up public services looking at the totality of expenditure in any one area and sitting round and trying to go into solutions...there is still a silo mentality across the public agencies, which are acting in isolation and not in concert."
	So it is more than just a question of picking up the pragmatics of how Total Place works; it is also about getting to the concept of it and getting the agencies to agree that they are participating in a programme that is worth while.
	Again, the Secretary of State mentioned on a number of occasions—I got the impression that this was his view of the main purpose of this measure—that this was all about allowing local government to scrutinise the amount of its expenditure. Scrutiny is a very important function. Local government is growing into it in a dynamic way, and it has the ability to achieve some important results and to take forward different initiatives. However, it is about much more than scrutiny; it is about the ability to reorganise services on the ground in a fundamental and practical way.
	The leader of Kent county council made the point in a particularly fantastic way to the Public Bill Committee in relation to the Total Place experiment. He talked about his Margate renewal initiative, which relates to vulnerable families there, and he said:
	"In one shape or form, the amount of public agency support going to those families is more than £100,000 or £150,000. When you then start to talk to the health economy and the educational economy through to special needs, all of them are acting in isolation. With the health economy, the special needs economy and the public agencies, if you looked at the totality of expenditure on those 15, 20 or 100 families—more than £150,000—and thought about that pooled resource, would you start to do things dramatically differently that would lead to much more positive outcomes for those vulnerable families?"— ——[ Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 53-55, Q124 and Q126.]
	That is the whole purpose of the measure. The 2007 Act allowed me to try to get to grips with the information in order to be able to do something with it. I have never liked to collect data just for the sake of it , but it can achieve a valuable purpose.
	The debate very much goes to the nature of the relationship between central and local government. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that my experience over the past 12 years has been of the way in which the Government have treated local government merely as the delivery arm of Whitehall, unable to take its own initiatives. The way in which that has come through most often is with regard to the ring-fenced grants, of which a considerable number are not needed and should be brought back into the pool. The problem with the ring-fenced grants is that they take a Whitehall view of how the money should be spent. It is a fixed view and, by and large, there is no flexibility for it to be targeted on areas of greatest need, which can be appreciated only on the ground. That was my experience of how the ring-fenced system leant to that view of local government as just the delivery arm of Whitehall.
	If we are to make something of the situation and release the potential of both Total Place and the spending statements, we need to make a fundamental change in the relationship between local and central Government. We talked earlier of trust, and central Government must place considerably greater trust in local government—in the idea that local government knows what it is talking about, and that there are reasonable people there who make rational decisions on the basis of evidence that they have and are well prepared to use.
	The current situation is a shame, and I have noticed it during the progress of the Child Poverty Bill, which is now in Committee. That Bill goes back to the old ways of doing things, entrenched in the Government view that, "We have a problem, we have some targets and, right, we will pass it straight over to local government to deal with." The Government do it with pooled budgets and there is no thought about how those should be dealt with or about the level of transparency, and no real acceptance of the need for targets other than central Government targets to ensure that a very important area of our society is dealt with constructively. Unless we ensure that these spending statements transform the way in which we deal with policy and with government, we will miss one of the greatest opportunities that we have to take this country forward in a partnership between central and local government.

Nick Hurd: We have had a rather good debate since we made it through the first 10 minutes of the Secretary of State's speech. That 10 minutes was badly judged, because the subject of the debate is legislation characterised by strong cross-party support. It was my privilege to be the promoter of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, and, as I sense that it will probably represent the pinnacle of my usefulness in this place, I am obviously keen to see it implemented properly. However, I am not alone, because, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) put it very well, many people can claim credit for what is a genuinely cross-party Act.
	The simple truth is that it is on the statute book for one reason only, and that is people power. It is a grass-roots Act, forged by a wide, deep and extremely determined coalition who want to change how the decisions that shape the future of their communities are made. They are disappointed, and their disappointment is reflected in early-day motion 1064, which has been signed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, by more than 250 Members, including more than 90 Labour Members. Feelings run strongly through all parts of the House.
	This debate has delivered some very clear messages to the Government. First, the 2007 Act is an important law that deserves greater attention from the Secretary of State, and I think that we have secured it in the run-up to and during this debate. Secondly, there is a perception that the Government have not delivered their promises on local spending reports. Thirdly, now is the time to change that perception and send a much stronger signal that the Department is committed to making the Act work, not just paying lip service to it. That has been the key theme of a good debate.
	I shall acknowledge in particular two contributions, not least because they come from new players on the Act's well trodden stage. On intervention and in a brief but telling speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) drew on his considerable and relevant experience, not least as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When he acknowledges that the importance of the Act is the transfer of effective power, we should listen. It was also useful of him to draw on his direct experience of Total Place in Leicester.
	I also particularly welcomed the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), not least because he was not a Member when the legislation was debated. He none the less drew deeply on his experience as a county councillor and on the direct experience of wrestling with the challenge of partnership working. He stressed the importance of words such as trust and transparency and, critically, the importance of the ability to change how things are delivered. Without that sense of the potential to change how services are delivered and who delivers them, we will not be able to make the progress that we need.
	The theme is clear: the Government could and should do better. I should like to do two things: first, make it quite clear why we are disappointed; and secondly, try to persuade the Government to change gear. Critically, they should get over the "not invented here" syndrome and seize the opportunity that the 2007 Act provides to get people involved again in the decisions that shape their communities, and to transform the efficiency of public expenditure. Never has that need been more pressing, and the key word that will drive such transformation is "transparency".
	So why are we disappointed? It is worth going back to what the Act set out to do. Its guiding principle was that local people know best, and that we should have much greater influence over the decisions that shape the future of the places where we live and work. To that end, the Act required the Government to seek proposals by local authorities for new policies and powers they needed to promote more sustainable communities. The Local Government Association would act as a selector, and the Secretary of State would have a duty to reach agreement on a shortlist of proposals. To assist local authorities in this process, the Government were required to produce local spending reports that would give local authorities and the communities they serve new information on public expenditure in the area, and local authorities would be free to challenge existing expenditure and make the case for the transfer of function and resource.
	That goes to the heart of the response to the Secretary of State's concerns about the absence of quality of service from the debate, because the local spending reports are in fact a catalyst for challenging and driving up quality. The example that we used in Committee, as agreed by the then Minister, was that of Business Link. The scenario was one whereby a local authority had a locally set target about supporting local businesses. The provision of full, effective local spending reports would have shown the local authority what Business Link was spending in the area. If the local authority and the community that it serves felt that Business Link was not doing an adequate job, it could then, under the provisions of the Act, make representations to get the function and the budget transferred from Business Link.
	If colleagues think through that example, they will see what potential the Act has to change the dynamics of how decisions are taken at a local level and to challenge whoever makes them. That could be a real motor for driving up quality and for asserting local priorities. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the auntie of the Act, observed—I sincerely welcome his remarks—it is a wonderful opportunity for the voluntary sector. As shadow Minister for charities, social enterprise and the voluntary sector, I have said to people in the sector, "This Act is a great opportunity for you—seize it," and they recognise that fact.
	The bottom line, as anyone who was involved in the long trench warfare over the Bill in Committee knows, is that local spending reports were always seen as the meat in the sandwich—the genuinely radical part of the Act, as it now is. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden stressed that in her opening speech. It was also clear that the reports had to be as comprehensive as possible in order to be useful—a key word used by the Secretary of State. In the consultation response, the chief executive of Labour-controlled Gateshead said:
	"Unless a comprehensive picture of expenditure is given within a specified spatial area, the reports could provide a misleading picture."
	The then Minister "got" this. He was frank about complexity, as the Secretary of State said. Nevertheless, the direction of travel was clear. That May, the House was told that the local spending report would cover all public expenditure in each local authority—in so far as it is possible to define it—that it would cover both current and future spending, and that it would include all public agencies. That could not be clearer. Such transparency must be right, not only because it is fundamental in giving local people meaningful influence, as the LGA put it recently, but because it is the natural bedfellow of efficiency and finding better ways of doing things.
	There is a more fundamental point, which was made strongly by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. In 2009, surely we have a right to know what is being done in our name, in our area. We live in a world where we have so much information at our fingertips, yet it is almost impossible to find out what the state is doing in our name, in our area. I am a Greater London MP—or a Middlesex MP, as we prefer to say. I am told by London Councils that £74 billion of public money is being spent in London, £5.6 billion of which is being spent by 169 non-departmental public bodies, 15 of which spend about 80 per cent. of that money. I would like to know what they are doing in Hillingdon. How hard can it be to get that information? It is absurd that in 2009 my local authority does not know what the Metropolitan police are spending in the borough of Hillingdon, or how much flexibility the borough commander has over that budget: they need to be partners. There has to be a better way, and the public know it. This place should need no lectures about the public appetite for greater transparency. It is growing, and we must respond to it.
	That is what the Act was intended to do, but what was actually delivered? One year after it was ratified it was formally launched at the LGA by the then Secretary of State, who had inherited it from her predecessor. Two things were clear to me as I sat in the audience. The first was that local spending reports were barely on her radar screen, and that she saw political risk in them because of the potential comparisons between areas. The second, which came from talking to officials, was that one year on, no real work had been done on making the local spending reports happen in a substantial way, even though they were due to be published six months later. That told me that there was no leadership or political will at the top of the Department, and that not enough time had been allowed to make the system work. Members can take their pick between cock-up and conspiracy. In my experience these things are normally cock-ups, but that is not the perception among supporters of the Act. The message that we received was that there was no political will at all driving the process.
	I should say that it is not all bad news. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, we should take encouragement from how many councils responded to the Act despite wholly inadequate local spending reports. The LGA, acting in its role as selector, now has a large number of proposals to sift through, some of them very radical indeed. However, the LSRs were a big disappointment. The starting point was wrong, with the ambition limited to local authorities and primary care trusts, as the responses to the short consultation made clear. As the Secretary of State said, the Government responded and added lines of expenditure, but not enough. They did not even begin to engage with quangoland, and there were glaring exceptions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood have ruthlessly exposed.
	Moreover, the relevant information is quite hard to find, being tucked away in pretty impenetrable Excel spreadsheets in the bowels of the departmental website. People find it difficult to engage with them, and they are given no prominence at all. Disappointingly, everything indicates that, as the LGA puts it, the first LSRs
	"reflect a minimalist approach to the concept of, and commitments to, Local Spending Reports as discussed in Parliament during the passage of the Sustainable Communities Act".
	It states that they
	"fall short of the ambitions for LSRs shared across all political parties at...local level."
	That sense of disappointment is shared by local authority leaders in Wealden, who have said that the LSRs
	"fall significantly short of expectations and are of little or no value in developing proposals".
	According to Merton council,
	"it is questionable about how useful this information is given that a great deal of it is already publicly available and that the data included is very high level".
	The truth is that the Government have simply repackaged information that, for those who could be bothered to look for it, was already in the public domain. The Secretary of State trotted out 96 different reasons why it was all so difficult, straight out of the Sir Humphrey playbook, but he did not convince us.
	What makes the situation even more frustrating is that the Government actually appear to be committed to the mapping of expenditure. They have developed their own project, Total Place, which we have discussed at length, and they support it with taxpayers' money, but they drag their feet on local spending reports. That looks to me like a bad case of "not invented here" syndrome.  [Interruption.] The Secretary of State groans, but that is our perception.
	The hon. Member for Stroud made a good point about potential confusion in the marketplace between LSRs and Total Place, and how the two will be reconciled. The debate has been useful in giving us a sense of the Government's aspirations in that direction and highlighting the value of having the Treasury fully bound into the process, which we acknowledge. Still, the fundamental question is: if it can be done in Cumbria, why can it not be done elsewhere? I am not sure whether we have had sufficiently good answers to that. If part of the problem is that central Government do not hold the information, why can they not go and get it? If the problem is that the Department does not have the power of information gathering, we must consider what can be done to change that situation, and whether it is worth having that debate in public.
	My concern is that local spending reports have not told local authorities' leaders anything that they could not have found out for themselves. For those who went ahead and submitted proposals there is no visibility to show when they will get a decision on them, and for those interested in making proposals at a subsequent phase, there is no visibility to show how that will work. The risk is that an already sceptical market of local authority leaders will shrug their shoulders and move on. That will frustrate the grass-roots campaign that believes in the process and wants change.
	I think that the Government have misread the mood, and a large number of organisations feel the same way, including Unison, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Federation of Small Businesses. A range of organisations have expressed disappointment and have urged the Government to do better.
	The Government have set out their stall. They say, "Give us a chance. We're getting there. As you know, government is terribly complicated and we've got to be careful about costs. There's terrible inertia out there." My response is that we will judge them by their actions, not their words. We have heard plenty of words, but they have not delivered.
	I have three tests: first, let us hear a statement from the Department on how it intends to try to reach agreement with the LGA on submitted proposals. The Department is silent, and it should not be. Secondly, let us hear the Government make it clear that this process is not a one-off, and that local authorities will have the opportunity to submit new proposals in the near future. Thirdly, let us set a timetable for the delivery of effective local spending reports that include quangos—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made the very good point that it is actually in quangos' interest to do more to explain to the public what they do, to justify their existence.
	I am sure that government is complicated, but I am also sure that it is less so when people are clear about their priorities and really drive them. Effective LSRs cannot be that hard, because Total Place pilots seem to have the information. There will be costs, but they must be tiny compared with the efficiency savings that should be the dividend of greater transparency; that point was made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
	Transparency must be a priority now. If the Minister has any doubts about that, I urge her to look at what is happening in the USA. Months, not years, after the election of President Obama, the default setting was changed from closed to open. Look at the Missouri accountability portal. It is not an obscure Excel file, but four buttons to click on. Look at SeeThroughNY, USAspending.gov or data.gov, the strapline of which is "Discover. Participate. Engage." In America, they have been bold in opening the books, throwing open the doors and letting the light and the people in. They do it because they know that it will be the catalyst to engagement, efficiency and innovation; here, we continue to live in the dark.
	That is not the future. The 2007 Act has wedged the door open and it will not close again. I urge the Government to listen to Parliament, embrace the future, change the default setting to open government, not closed government, start to treat people intelligently and commit now to full local spending reports that include quangos—and just get on with it.

Barbara Follett: This has been a very important debate on a subject that, I believe, goes to the very heart of democracy and participation in our country. The quality of the contributions has been high, which I hope has made up for the rather disappointing quantity.
	I was both disappointed and surprised, however, by the tone of some contributions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a very real attempt to draw on the cross-party nature of the 2007 Act and to describe the progress made, and the process that we have gone through, in an open and fair fashion, but the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), despite his stated desire to be helpful, descended very swiftly—within seconds of starting his speech—into old-fashioned yah-boo politics. As a previous Culture Minister, I can assure him that I am very well aware how the Arts Council does its accounting. I can also assure him that we will be considering its inclusion in the December report, and also the inclusion of the learning and skills councils.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was one of the midwives of the original Bill, adopted a more helpful tone, but the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), made remarks about Government spending being veiled in secrecy, even though this Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act—some Members may wish at the moment that we had not done so. To suggest that this Government are not committed to transparency is ridiculous. I think that in her opening contribution, she established the suspicious and distrustful tone that permeated the debate in a rather silly and old-fashioned way.

Stephen Dorrell: I am sorry if the Minister felt that I was being overly partisan: I was simply seeking to put the Government under pressure to deliver shared aspirations. She said that she would look again at the Arts Council and, almost under her breath, that she would also look at the learning and skills councils to decide whether to include them in December. May we take that as a commitment that those exclusions will not be claimed by December? The Secretary of State virtually promised the inclusion of the probation service—can that be included in the list for which the exemptions will be withdrawn?

Barbara Follett: Those are good things to look at, but beware the yah-boo politics—you are at it again.

Barbara Follett: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for losing my temper.
	The yah-boo politics were very obvious in the impassioned contribution from, and constant heckling by, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). I admire her conviction and enthusiasm, and I enjoyed meeting her to discuss this subject recently. However, I did not admire her approach today. In fact, by the end of her contribution I began to feel a real need for a Relate counsellor in the Chamber. Her intervention was so filled with distrust and suspicion that I could not believe that I had spent half an hour talking to her about this previously.
	Thankfully, Relate, in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), was present. His well-balanced speech poured oil—

Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman may certainly look forward to us looking at them. We need to move away from the old ways of doing things, and the hon. Gentleman's call for the transformation of the relationship between local and central Government was a good one.
	In response to the direct questions from the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, we will—as I said earlier—produce a report in December on the next stages of developing spending reports. On her question about when the next round will take place, it will be—as I again said earlier—when we have assessed and appraised this round. We will certainly consider the role of parish councils in the process.

Barbara Follett: That is something that has to be decided by the House. Because I had left that out, I was going to come to it at the end of my speech. I heard what the hon. Lady said.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) gave a clear summary of the progress of the Act and described my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud as the auntie of the Act. I am not sure that everyone would agree. The hon. Gentleman also said that transparency is the bedfellow of efficiency, which echoed the Secretary of State's remark that knowledge is power. Like the hon. Member for Meriden, however, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that information on local spending can be accessed only through the spending reports. As they know, that is simply not true. I am Regional Minister for the East of England, and the regional development agencies produce huge numbers of accounts and reports that are available to everyone. We have also looked at their value for money, and for every pound spent, we get £4.50 back. That information is available and is not collated in with the local spending reports, although I hope that eventually it will be—this is work in progress.

Caroline Spelman: Does the hon. Lady accept that the problem is that the RDA spend is not broken down by constituency? From time to time, we get a letter from the chief executive telling us a bit of good news, but it is piecemeal. Does she accept that one of the reasons the debate at times has been tense—although I would not characterise it as yah-boo—is the absence today of the written ministerial statement promised on this very subject? That has coloured Members' stances. That statement is still not in the Library.

Barbara Follett: I apologise for that omission. I have been told that it is in the Library. I also apologise, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, for the fact that we did not extend the normal courtesies and give it to the Front-Bench team. I shall personally ensure that it never happens again.
	As the hon. Lady said, the information needs to be disaggregated, but, as someone who has spent many years attempting to get Government statistics disaggregated by gender, I can tell hon. Members that it is difficult and extraordinarily expensive. However, the Government and I are committed to open and transparent disclosure of public spending. We share that principle with other hon. Members. However, we share another principle—public money, especially in these difficult times, has to be used for the benefit of the people from whom it has been raised.
	Most importantly, each pound of that money has to work harder than ever before. No one entrusted with the care of public money takes its use lightly, and we firmly believe that those who have earned this money should have the right to see exactly how it is being spent. That is why we are developing the concept of local spending reports alongside the Total Place pilots. I hope that that transparency will permeate everything that the Government do in the future, and that we can work in more accord with Opposition parties on this extraordinarily worthwhile venture.
	 Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Army was asked to make cuts amounting to £43 million, the regular generals were rather Machiavellian in choosing to cut the TA budget, knowing that that would be very unpopular with the country and that it would probably be reversed? Is it not, however, also at a stroke a blow to the one Army concept, because what will the TA now think about the regular Army, and in particular the regular generals?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend puts her finger on the key point that there will be long-standing damage to morale as a consequence of what has happened in recent days, and that cannot easily be rectified by a U-turn by politicians.
	As a result of all these points, one must ask why the Government considered such cuts to begin with, when almost all the advice they received runs against such a decision. On training, the Cottam report—whose seven strategic recommendations were accepted in full by the Government—said:
	"Training is pivotal to the Proposition. The delivery of training should be overhauled to make it more relevant, consistent and correctly resourced."
	The Government said these cuts would not have a long-term impact on providing Territorials for Afghanistan, but that is not the view of senior Army officers. According to the "Land forces in-year savings measure communication plan" dated 12 October 2009, the
	"TA trained strength may fall from 20,000 to around 18,000 by 1 Apr 2010, putting at risk the TA's ability to deliver 700-800 trained soldiers for Op HERRICK from 2012 onwards."
	The excuses given by the Government also need to be scrutinised. As always, there is more than meets the eye. We were told that money had to be found to fund new recruits. On Monday, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), said that
	"recruitment to the Army has experienced a significant boost this year—over 1,000 more recruits are expected to complete training than did so last year—but those additional recruits need to be paid for."—[ Official Report, 26 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 23.]
	Because of this recession—the longest recession since records began, and longer than the Government expected—and the media recruitment drive of the past year, there are more recruits in the regular Army than there is money to train them from the Government budget. The Government have demanded savings from other areas of the Army to fund this, but the Government knew last year that regular Army recruitment was already taking off.
	On recruitment, the Chief of the General Staff briefing team report of 2008 stated that
	"We are making progress and the figures are showing early signs of recovery. The recession will also help but we must not be complacent and must continue to be innovative with recruiting methods, reduce waste in training, and retain those currently serving."
	Such a direct message from the head of the Army should at least have been a warning to the Government, so why did the Government not plan to fund their own target numbers for recruitment, especially when we are in a war? I understand that they probably believed that they would fail in this, as they have in so many other things, but why were no financial contingencies made?

Liam Fox: Indeed, and many of the myths the Government have been peddling in recent times have been blown apart by events of the past few weeks. If there really is a problem in funding all the new recruits, and if money was going to be diverted from the TA budget to address that but now that is not going to happen, where will the MOD find the money that will still be required to fund those extra recruits? What other areas will have to experience cuts because the Government failed to plan properly?
	That brings me to the other excuse given by the Government—it is perhaps even more telling. The Secretary of State said in a recent debate:
	"We are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan".—[ Official Report, 15 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 469.]
	Yet the Government have repeatedly told the House in recent years that they
	"always finance our military commitments overseas out of the reserve".—[ Official Report, 5 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1083.]
	It has always been the House's understanding that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be funded from the reserve and would not have an impact on the core budget. If operations in Afghanistan are fully funded from the reserve, why does the Ministry of Defence need to adjust the core budget to reprioritise operations in Afghanistan? What is the MOD core budget paying for that the Treasury is not?
	One of the most telling things that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair ever said was contained in one of his long farewell tour speeches. When speaking on one of Her Majesty's ships he said, "Under Labour, we have kept spending on defence constant at about 2.5 per cent. of GDP, if you include Iraq and Afghanistan." In other words, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were being fought on a peacetime budget, and that has always meant that there would be some impact on the core budget. It is now clear that— as many Members of the House have said in many debates in recent times—all costs associated with operations in Afghanistan will not be paid in full above and beyond the core defence budget.

Liam Fox: I must tell my right hon. Friend that inside this Government they play the blame game extremely well—now they are even blaming one another. No. 10 is briefing at this very moment that this was all the MOD's fault and that No. 10 rode to the rescue of the MOD to save it from itself; our Prime Minister, the great champion of the armed forces and long-term advocate of their welfare, has come to the rescue of the Secretary of State, who clearly does not understand these issues. After the shocking report that we saw this morning about the long-term consequences of what has happened with the cultural shift in the Government, the Prime Minister is not on a strong wicket when it comes to blaming anybody else for the state in which our armed forces find themselves.
	The Cottam review acknowledged that reservists remain vital for supporting national resilience and recognised the very important role that they play in connecting the armed forces with the nation. I know that I speak for the vast majority in the House when I say that I could not agree more. The connection between each community and each local TA unit makes the TA worth its weight in gold, and it can never be taken for granted—I might suggest that after the past week's events, politically it might never be taken for granted in the same way again. The TA plays an important role in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State knows that, because he sees it on his morale-boosting tours there, one of which he recently completed with the Home Secretary—goodness knows how depressed one has to be before one's morale is boosted by the Home Secretary and the Defence Secretary on tour.
	This whole episode that we have witnessed in recent days smacks of a Government who no longer make joined-up decisions and whose political instincts have gone walkabout. What do they cut to reprioritise MOD funds for Afghanistan? Do they cut waste, bureaucracy or inefficiency? No, in order to help the war effort, they reduce the training for the troops who may be needed for the war effort. The trouble is that the act of doing so means that many of those in the TA might be gone by the time that the Government need them. We could not make up this level of incompetence. The TA represents some of the bravest and best things about Britain; the Government represent some of the most pointless and useless. It is time to go.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from the second 'operations;' to the end of the Question and add:
	"welcomes the Government's additional £20 million ring-fenced by the Treasury for Territorial Army training; and further welcomes the Government's policy to ensure that TA members deployed to Afghanistan are fully and properly trained for their role and to ensure that, for all TA members, normal training will take place in the evening and at weekends."
	The Territorial Army and the UK reserve forces make a vital contribution to keeping our country safe—to defending our citizens, territory, interests and national security. They also make a vital contribution to the fabric of our society as a whole. They represent important values: a strong volunteer ethos, a commitment to service, giving back to society and the values of community.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way in a moment.
	Our reserves are no longer held in the role they served during the cold war, that is, for direct territorial defence. The TA has become an integral arm of the regular Army, supporting the operational commitments of regular forces as set out in the strategic defence review.
	Almost 20,000 reservists have served on operations since 2003, including 15,000 members of the TA, and 650 reservists are serving in Afghanistan, some 7 per cent. of all of the forces deployed. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, 14 members of the TA have died on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and more have been wounded, 31 returning with potentially life-changing injuries. Their sacrifice must not and will not be forgotten.

Bob Ainsworth: In a moment.
	Against that sacrifice, and to ensure our essential national security, Afghanistan comes first for defence. It gets first call on money, first call on equipment and first call on training and support. We are spending increasing sums from the Treasury reserve and the defence budget to do that. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen from £700 million in 2006 to more than £3 billion this year.

Bob Ainsworth: In a moment.
	We have approved more than £3.2 billion of urgent operational requirements specifically for Afghanistan. That additional spending has allowed us to more than double helicopter capacity compared with 2006, to quadruple the number of mine-protected Mastiff and Ridgback vehicles compared with six months ago, to increase the number of specialised troops and equipment to target the improvised explosive device networks, to deploy about 1,000 more troops in a little over six months and to budget for a further increase of 500 if the conditions that we have set out are met.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way to a number of hon. Members in a moment.
	Afghanistan First is not only a matter of drawing on the Treasury reserve. Many parts of the core defence budget contribute too, including spending on recruitment and basic training. We need to make tough choices with resources if we want to keep equipment, manpower and support flowing to Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Woodspring said that all we did was to give the Army bad options and bad choices, and that we should not have been entirely surprised when they came up with the decisions that we took. He also said that we failed to plan properly. One can plan all one likes and can come up with all the options that one likes, but who is coming up with the money? I am hearing people from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: That is just semantics— [ Interruption. ] Yes, it is. I am saying that Afghanistan is the main effort. No one dares to disagree with that, but no one is prepared to make the choices necessary to deal with the problem.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: I shall make some progress with my speech, and then I shall give way some more so that we can deal with the points that have been made about how to deal with the TA in the long term.
	Before I turn to the TA itself, I shall set out the scale of the challenge. There are enormous pressures on the MOD budget in the short term that have been brought about by a number of factors. Those include the fact that we must ensure that operations in Afghanistan have the support required, not only from the Treasury reserve but from the defence budget as a whole, and the difficult fiscal situation that demands that each Government Department must live within its means. Other factors, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) pointed out, are the economic slow-down that has impacted on our planned revenue, such as that from the defence estate, the fall in the value of the pound against other currencies that has impacted on the costs of our overseas interests, and a boost in recruitment, to the Army in particular, that has exceeded expectations and requires additional investment.
	That means that tough choices have to be made now. The Chief of the General Staff came forward with proposals from the Army for savings of £20 million in TA expenditure. Those were part of a package that included other measures such as saving money on the hire of civilian vehicles, clothing, entertainment, accommodation, and cadets. This was not one thing alone. Hard choices had to be made in order to deal with the issues that we are faced with, and to give the priority that we must and want to give, on which, in principle, we all agree.
	I consulted closely with the Chief of the General Staff before approving these measures. In the Army's view, there were no alternatives in the uncommitted in-year budget that would be less damaging. In the short term the Army has been clear that these proposals could be managed without impact on support to current operations. Let me be clear: no one deploys to Afghanistan without the required training. No TA soldier is deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and prepared.

Bob Ainsworth: We have—I make no apologies for this—agreed not just with the Chief of the General Staff, but with all the single service chiefs, that we will ensure that Afghanistan is the main effort. In order to do that, nobody was prepared to say anything other than that when the opportunity to recruit to the Army was there, it should be taken, and it should be taken in full. There is no doubt that that, in part, caused the in-year problems, along with the other issues that I have spoken about.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing out the contrast between the record of the Opposition and that of the Government. The budget has increased over our period by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1997. As my right hon. Friend points out, that is in marked contrast with the last five years that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was in power. There were cuts of £500 million a year for the last five years of the last Tory Government. I shall give way to him so that he can explain why that happened.

Bob Ainsworth: I have in this year's budget an additional £20 million ring-fenced in order to restore the TA cuts. I am very grateful to the Treasury which, as we all know, has some difficulties itself, for providing those additional funds.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Ainsworth: Let me make some progress.
	As I said, no TA soldier is deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and prepared. I have listened to the comments and representations made by hon. Members in recent days, and I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the effect on retention in the TA. In the light of those representations, and with the assurances from the Treasury that additional ring-fenced money will be made available, we have decided to maintain the normal TA training regime. That will be restored as quickly as possible.
	Looking forward, the Department undertakes an annual planning round in order to prioritise and allocate available resources for the next financial year. This process has not been concluded, but we will have to look at all parts of the budget in the round. Measures from across other parts of defence are being considered to bring budgets into balance and these will be set out as decisions are made. Such difficult decisions are being taken by working with the service chiefs, not against them.
	I am determined to protect operations in Afghanistan. That is my bottom line. Tough choices cannot be made without consequences. The media and the Opposition have been calling for more focus on current operations. They cannot will the ends and oppose the means. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tries to have his cake and eat it. He cannot preach austerity, as the shadow Chancellor does, and then call foul on any measure that is proposed to relieve budget pressures.
	I can assure the House of the Government's continuing and long-term commitment to defence and to the UK reserve forces and the Territorial Army. After years of overall cuts under the Conservative party, this Government have increased spending on defence since 1997 by 10 per cent. in real terms. As part of that investment, we are seeking a better and more intelligent use of the reserve forces to ensure that all parts of defence contribute to the whole in a way that is both efficient and effective.
	On 28 April this year, I published a strategic review of reserves and I made a statement to the House. The MOD agreed the seven strategic recommendations made by the review and work is under way to implement 46 of the 89 detailed recommendations. Those include 10 of the 12 detailed recommendations related to training, all of which have been completed or are progressing. The reserves review was all about the long-term; about better management, better training and the integration of our reserve forces. It also established a mandate for change, in order to allow greater flexibility and utility in the employment of our reserves. It set in place a strategic framework for how we will integrate, train and support our reserve forces, and develop a strategy for the management of the volunteer estate.
	The implementation programme—programme Citizen—is progressing well, but work on recommendations beyond those already endorsed will require additional resources; not planning, not options, not semantics, but additional resources. We are implementing as much as we can from the reserves review within the bounds of the resources currently available. Headquarters land forces is in the early stages of developing options for the shape of a future Territorial Army, but a defence review must come first and set the parameters for the use of our armed forces.

Adam Holloway: The Secretary of State speaks about additional resources. Why is it then that our soldiers, including members of the Territorial Army, are still making what our commanders describe as unnecessary road moves because of lack of helicopters? On 8 September, a private company went to the MOD and offered 12 MI-17s, 12 Bell 142s and one MI-26, which would have provided about 2,500 additional flying hours, fully weaponised and fully conditioned for theatre, flown by former RAF pilots. Why was £7 million a month, just over twice the housing benefit payments in my constituency, not spent in order to get our troops out of the danger of improvised explosive devices?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has just heard the figures on our increased spending in Afghanistan. He wants increased spending over and above that, on helicopters; he wants increased spending on the TA; he wants us out of Afghanistan—

Bob Ainsworth: Well, the hon. Gentleman's problem is that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench do not agree that there should be additional spending on defence—quite the reverse: they are planning cuts in defence. They cannot hide behind charlatan words, they have got to come to a point.

Tony Baldry: Given that these cuts have been reversed, is not the most damaging thing about all this its effect on the TA, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said? Those of us who served in the TA thought that we were part of one Army—that our training was as good as that of any regular officer or soldier standing alongside us, and we often did the same job that people are now doing in Afghanistan. Sadly, when it came to the crunch, Ministers gave the impression that senior officers in the Army were ready to ditch the TA. We do not know whether that is true, but it will undermine relations between the TA and the regular Army for years to come. That is the most damaging aspect of what has happened over the past few days, and it cannot be reversed.

Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The 2006 National Audit Office report specifically referred to the fact that many of those in the TA—about one in three—reckoned that there was insufficient support for their employers. To make further cuts on top of that surely does not send the right message to employers that they should take seriously their contributions to the defence of the nation. That is causing even more damage.
	When we have time to plan, we can often find innovative ways to do things, or see that the same job can be done with less money. However, that operation takes time. Emergency cuts such as these are rarely efficient and often destructive. What Department would be able to cope with this proportion—30 per cent.—of its budget going in one fell swoop? What Department would be able to cope with such a massive reduction with just a few weeks' notice? No Department would be able to cope with that—it would be absolute chaos. That is what would have happened to the TA had the cuts proceeded.
	This is an indication that the MOD is in a financial hole that it has dug for itself. It shows that Ministers have lost control of their budget. Let me take as an example of that something that is close to my heart and that the Minister hears me going on about all the time—the aircraft carriers, which are finally going to be commissioned on Rosyth. There have been two incidents recently. The first is the last-minute two-year delay, which is putting an extra £1 billion on the budget, taking the costs from £4 billion to £5 billion. That has been planned for years, but suddenly, at the last minute, there is a change of tack and an increase in the time scale of two years, and it costs us an extra £1 billion. Secondly, there have been recent reports that the carrier spec will be changed so that one carries aeroplanes and the other carries helicopters. We do not know whether that is true, as Ministers have not told us, but if it is, it has again happened at the last minute. That is no way to run a defence budget, and such emergency cuts are having a huge impact on how we are running our defences.
	In recent months, the Prime Minister has made great play from the Dispatch Box of Labour's desire to protect the front line and cut backroom bureaucracy. As the Secretary of State leaves the Chamber, I wonder whether he will appear on the next party political broadcast to use the cuts proposed for the TA as an example of how that has been achieved. This episode surely damages Labour's claim that it is protecting the valuable and slashing waste.
	What message does the episode send to the TA? A former major, Mark Cann, who served for 12 years with the TA, recently said that the cuts would be a significant deterrent to new recruits and would send
	"a message from the politicians at the top that 'we don't value you'."
	There is already dissatisfaction. The 2006 NAO report showed that one fifth of TA members were not satisfied with the level of training that they were given. If cuts are made to a level of training that was already inadequate as far as TA members were concerned, surely that will cause the TA further damage.
	It is often difficult to tell exactly what is going on in the MOD. It does not tell us an awful lot and its budgets are opaque. We found out about the cuts because the TA is in the community and we have friends and relatives who are part of it, but what else has happened? What other cuts have been made that we do not know about? Will there be a series of parliamentary statements over the coming weeks to explain what else is being considered? The Secretary of State enlightened us on some matters, but I presume that they are only part of what is being considered. We would like to know what else is going on so that we can help. We have helped on this occasion, with a cross-party effort to find a solution to the problem, and if Ministers trusted us a little more with information we could perhaps help them even more.
	It is interesting that the RAF and the Navy have not come to the same conclusion as the Army about their reserves. Why is that, and did Ministers seek their advice before making their decisions about the TA? Perhaps the Navy and RAF are not as cunning as the Army. I suspect that, as was suggested earlier, the Chief of the General Staff knew that the cuts would create huge uproar and would be reversed and that he would get his own way. If he is that cunning, that is interesting, and I wonder why the Secretary of State did not see it coming. Perhaps he is equally cunning and was trying to persuade the Prime Minister that the cuts were not palatable, and it has been an organised plan all along. I wish that the MOD could be so organised and well planned more often.

Willie Rennie: Point well made.
	The situation calls into question the Government's judgment. It was already in question over the Gurkha situation, which they mishandled badly. For a long time they misread the mood of the public, who had great passion for the Gurkhas. Unfortunately, the same team of Ministers has made the same mistake again. They have misread the public mood, and I do not believe that they have the judgment that is required for such decisions.
	We do not really know where the £17.5 million has come from. We understand that it is perhaps from the Treasury, but what is going to be sacrificed in return? It would be interesting to know what that sacrifice is, and we should be told in the interests of transparent government. The Prime Minister made great play of the power of this Parliament when he was first elected Prime Minister, but we have not heard an awful lot of that since and we do not have an awful lot of transparency. If we are to have power—if we are to be empowered in this Parliament—we need the information on which to make such judgments. In his summing up, will the Minister tell us what has been sacrificed in return for the £17.5 million or £20 million?
	The cuts would have had significant consequences for morale, as we have heard, and for retention and recruitment—if the regular drill nights were not taking place, people would break the habit and no longer be hooked, exacerbating the reserve-regular divide. Having the one Army has been developing well in recent years, but unfortunately I think that this situation will do significant damage. Even mentioning cuts will have damaged the TA, which will be concerned that the cuts will be offered up in future.
	As we all know, those in the TA are not amateurs just because they are part time; they are professionals—the Minister also believes that. There are numerous examples of heroic acts in the TA and people have been awarded the military cross or honoured for their bravery, such as Private Luke Cole and Lance Corporal Darren Dickson. A TA regiment protected a NATO headquarters following a car bombing. Those people were commended for their bravery and for their commitment to the TA. Unfortunately, even mentioning cuts does huge damage to the TA's morale and effectiveness.
	The Minister will be pleased to hear that I have some praise for the Government. Back in 1998, they slashed the size of the TA from around 56,000 to 41,000 as part of the defence review. They were heavily criticised at the time and came under considerable pressure to change course. It took them about four years to recognise that mistake, but it has taken them only 14 days to recognise this one, which is an incredible improvement. They should be commended for recognising their mistakes via a speedier process. Perhaps the NHS could learn a few things about reducing waiting times and recognising mistakes.
	I also praise the Government for engaging with Members, listening to their advice and acting. It has not been a comfortable time for the ministerial team, but the way in which they have handled the concern deserves commendation. However, the original decision was suspect.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), I remind the House that at the moment there is 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Judging from the amount of interest that is being shown, it would be helpful—without me having to alter the limit—if hon. Members could try to keep well within it. In that way, everyone should be satisfied.

Frank Cook: I first alerted Mr. Speaker that I would seek to catch his eye in this debate on Monday evening, after listening to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) and having had my own thoughts as I was doing so. However, developments have shot a major hole in the arguments that I had in my heart and mind at that time. Being a simple man—I am not stupid—I shall salvage what I was going to say and make a couple of simple points. I hope that it will take nothing like 15 minutes to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Before those developments, I had intended to begin my speech by referring to a report entitled, "New Roles for the Reserve Forces" and I shall do so now. I wrote the report in November 1994 and presented it to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which accepted it in full. I pointed out a number of things in the report: that there were jobs that the reserves and Territorials could do that were not being done at the time; how they could fill in for the regular Army; the difficulty that reserve forces had in obtaining their release because employers were less than happy to let them go, for however short a period; and what a good job they could do. The report has been picked up over the years—not because I wrote it, but because it made sense. They have proved themselves well worth the confidence that has been placed in them.
	At that time, there was a major gap between the Terriers and the regulars. Many regulars looked on them as part-timers who would be more of a liability than an asset. Many of the part-time commissioned ranks were not readily allowed to take command of regular units. That has all changed.
	I have been to Afghanistan five times, and on three of those occasions the driving and protection units that took care of us were so-called part-timers, there for three or four months. They were so professional that it is difficult to describe. There was no difference between the full-time regulars and the Terriers. That happens because confidence has been built up throughout the units. It happens because those so-called part-timers have had the time to do the bonding necessary for the esprit de corps that we emphasise so strongly in all our regular units. They become regular units of their own kind.
	When the suggestion was made to reduce the ability to continue that bonding, I thought that it was bordering on the insane. I received an e-mail today from a constituent. His name is Ken Milner. I do not know him, but he lives in Lutton crescent in Billingham. He says:
	"Dear Sir"—
	I do not know why he calls me sir, as most people do not afford me that kind of courtesy—
	"now the PM has done a u turn on this, if in fact he was ever driving it forward. You have to feel sorry for him at times? Could I ask you to still keep pushing the Government/MOD to be sensible!
	The original decision affected 19,000 casual workers, if we were categorised as part time they would not have attempted it. But that will never happen, too expensive for the Country and then our Generals and Ministers would be restricted by employment Law.
	We already do a lot in our own time at our own expense from the top to the bottom, from an Officer to a Recruit. But to expect a system to maintain a standard but not train is plain daft."
	He then makes a nice point, saying:
	"A 5 a side football team would not lay off for six months and then be ready to play in a final."
	That is an effective way of describing the situation that we were facing.
	I am pleased that the reversal has been made, but I want to consider why it came about. Who first dreamed up the idea, and for what motive? At first glance, it has the paw prints of accountants all over it—those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. For that reason, I look in the direction of the Treasury. Even if someone on the general staff made a detailed suggestion, it must have been motivated by pressure from elsewhere. That is not a healthy way to approach our defence.
	I make an appeal for all these matters to be considered in a non-partisan fashion. Defence is not a party political issue. When we consider defence, we are talking about lives—the lives of those whom we send to do our bidding, whether in this country or someone else's; the lives of those associated with them, their parents and kindred; and the lives of those with whom they might come into conflict.
	Our whole consideration should concern the degree to which we incur the cost of life, the spending of life and the wasting of life. I know that the Secretary of State must consider the economics of the situation. He talked today about options, and I listened to him, but although cash considerations might be important, they must be secondary.
	There is another matter that I must bring to the Government's attention. It is not a personal matter, but I must put it in almost personal terms: we heard of the importance of Afghanistan, and it is important that we achieve our goal there, although I am not talking about victories; there will be no victory in Afghanistan. There might be gain, and we might allow the Afghan Government to get their security forces into such a position and state that they can look after their own affairs—and the sooner that we can do that the better—but we will not do that by cutting the dedicated resources that we put into it. We need to increase, rather than reduce.
	We must ensure that we provide sufficient equipment and personnel. I had the privilege only five weeks ago of listening to Stanley McChrystal, who brought out his new ideas on how to attend to the Afghanistan problem. When he told me his ideas about treating the Afghan people, rather than the Afghan territory, and when he outlined the additional risk to our personnel that will be experienced there, I pointed out to him that I had been going there for some years and that I had heard David Richards, then McNeill when he took over from Richards, and then McKiernan when he took over from McNeill. I said, "Look General, it's all right you giving us this. You're selling this to me, and I can buy it. It makes sense. But what happens in 12 months' time when somebody else comes in with some new ideas?" He said, "No, that won't be the case. I'm going to be here in 12 months' time." I said, "But you've got a family to take care of." He said, "No, I'm here for as long as it takes, and so is Rodriguez," —one of his No. 2s—and so was his civilian aide, apparently.
	The whole situation there is changing in a crucial way. Initially, the risks will be higher. Our resources need to be stronger. More personnel are needed—and the determination must be more resolute. I tell the Ministry of Defence not to make again the same mistake it made this time. That mistake was in looking only at its fiscal assessments and what money it had to play with, rather than at the lives dependent on the money. Do not make that mistake. That is what accountants get paid for—and that is what they get cashiered for.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I declare that I was a Territorial Army soldier. I was commissioned in 1980 and left in 1992 as a rifle commander. I was part of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and was incredibly proud of my time in the Territorial Army. I did not do it for money or because I wanted to become a major in the Army. I did not do it because I saw it as a grandiose way of furthering myself. I did it because I felt that it mattered. I had another life, and at the weekends I dropped my family and did my job. Two weeks of the year I went off and trained. I went to Germany, Gibraltar, America and Canada. What was I doing in these places? I was not on jollies; I was helping out the Regular Army. That is what the TA is.
	When I joined, there was an A4 poster showing two soldiers in the old tin-pot helmets and with the old self-loading rifles and bayonets, and the slogan was, "If you were the Russians, could you tell which was the TA?" The answer is no, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could not, any more than you can today. When those soldiers go out anywhere in the world, unless you know from the shoulder flash that they are from a Territorial unit, or unless you ask them, you cannot tell the difference, and the difference certainly does not bother the enemy, as has been proven time and time again.
	However, the problem is that we have seen change being made to the TA, which has never been good. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), when he was a special adviser to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), changing the rules for employers so that people could be deployed. We have come an enormous way in getting the TA out, but the most crucial part of being in the TA was not being there for the weekends; rather, it was that people could train with those men. What will disappear faster than anything else is the coherence of the formed unit.
	The Rifles have just been out in Afghanistan. What made their tour successful was training together. The people in the Rifles joined together, commissioned together and went through the battle camps together. They were there together. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that the programme would be put back as quickly as possible, but we have troops training all the time to go. Even specialists in the Territorial Army train as formed units, and they go as formed units.
	If we send a trooper out—I will give the Minister an example in a second—without knowing that unit or the blokes behind it, we will have problems. I have experience of that from 1990, when my regiment was in Germany, mech training—in other words, in armoured cars. The Gulf war came along, and the 3rd Battalion the Fusiliers was told that it was being deployed, but it did not have the men. We were in Aachen, where we were rung up and asked, "Could you supply a company of troops immediately?" The colonel came and said, "I need roughly 150 men to go to Iraq." We were only on a two-week camp. The blokes put their hands up almost to a man to go with the battalion—and the Minister will remember that that battalion had a friendly fire incident in the Gulf war.
	Those men did not shirk; they went out. The reason why the colonel could do that was that the men in that unit knew each other. They could join the battalion because they knew what they would have to do. The company commanders who were there at the time said that they were superb. In fact, Lord Bramall recently quoted an officer who said at the time, "Thank goodness for the Territorial Army." We make the difference when the difference is required.
	However, it goes beyond that. When we go to remembrance parades and see the lords lieutenant doing their thing, or when we see events in our constituencies—we all have the same thing—who is augmenting the regulars? It is the Territorials on parade, because we do not have the resources. Not only are the Territorials the public face of the military a lot of the time, because the troops are away doing other things, but they are the face of recruiting. Let us be honest: the reason why we are recruiting at the moment is the recession. That happened in the '90s, too, when recruiting went up. People will join because they cannot get jobs elsewhere, but that will not last.

Julian Brazier: I am listening to my hon. Friend's excellent speech. On a longer-term issue, his vital point about formed units appears, to put it mildly, pretty thin in the Cottam review. Although there is much in the review, about properly-resourced individual training and so on, that we as a party welcome, if it is the blueprint for the future, would he join me in urging the Government and those on our Front Bench to look hard at getting the idea of formed units more firmly written into the Cottam review?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He served honourably in Territorial units and he knows exactly what he is talking about. What he has just described is one of the problems. There are now very few Members of the House who have had the time, or whatever it may be, to serve in the military. Those who have done so, as Territorials or as regulars, will know exactly what the background is, and why this is so important. The formed unit principle is the backbone of the Army. The Marines, the Navy and the Royal Air Force are slightly different, in that they have specialist units. The Marines go as battlefield replacements, which is very different. The Army does not do that; it goes as a unit, because of the strength of the regimental system.
	The Territorial Army also takes a lot of boys—and now girls—who in other walks of life would be in prison, or at least in serious trouble. It gives those people respect, meals, a uniform and above all, discipline. That is never talked about, but it is the reality. Those young kids are given a chance. How many young kids get the chance to serve their country while trying to do something else at the same time? The answer is very few.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend, who served honourably in the cavalry. There is absolutely no doubt that the cadets feed the TA, which feeds the regulars. It is a top-to-bottom Army. Who trains the cadets? It is mainly ex-Territorials or ex-regulars, who have the necessary experience. If we do not have those people, they will not be able to do that.
	The crux of the argument is that TA units can augment local situations as well. If we get rid of the TA through not training it, it will not be available for deployment. Unless the Government give a firm commitment, not only now but for next year and the year after, that they are not going to cut the TA—an organisation of people who do this because they want to, and that has augmented from Dunkirk until now, and given 100 years of unselfish service—this will be a poorer country, and we will certainly have a poorer military, and a poorer TA.

Lindsay Hoyle: This commitment to the armed forces, and the expenditure, have continued to increase, and I want to see that continue, to ensure that these proposals do not return once we get into the next financial year. The challenge that we are now leaving with the Ministers and the Treasury is to ensure that that does not happen.
	This was also a problem in the 1990s, and people might say that they did not like what happened in the '90s. This experiment was tried by the previous Government at that time, and it failed. It failed miserably because, as far as the TA is concerned, we cannot turn the tap on and off. To say, "We don't want you today, but we'll come back for you in six months" is totally unacceptable. We should have looked at the history and realised that, if the experiment did not work in the '90s, it will certainly not work now. There is a lesson for us all, especially the Ministers, to learn here. When these matters are put before us, let us just dust them down and remember what happened previously.
	I will explain what happened previously. A colleague of mine, Major Tom Ronagan, who is retiring a week on Thursday is the longest-serving major in the British Army. He joined as a boy soldier in 1962; he served in Aden right through to the Balkans; he is a major of 64th Sea Squadron Chorley Medical Regiment, formerly the King's Own Borderers, which has a great proud history. He said, "I saw this happen in the '90s. It was decimation. When the notice went out to say the TA cut was taking place, you could not keep up with the kit that was being thrown through the door at us." The then Government said, "We have got this wrong. We are changing our minds. We are going to put the money back into the TA." They ended up getting on the phone, ringing round to say "Please rejoin. Don't give up on the TA." Mistakes have been made in the past; those mistakes must never ever be made again. That is what we have to learn from this exercise; that is why it is so important to overcome political points scoring.
	I rightly challenged the Prime Minister to intervene personally; in fairness, the Prime Minister did. I pay my thanks to him, as he took the right decision. It is always interesting to look back in the light of mistakes. The late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century have seen the TA assume an exceptionally high profile. It has moved from being a force of last resort to becoming the reserve of first choice in support of the regular Army. That is the key. The support the TA gives to the regular Army makes the concept of one Army so important: there is no difference between the Army in uniform and others training side by side. That concept has been badly dented, although I do not say destroyed. It has been badly affected. That is why it has to be rebuilt. Land Command has to realise that it is not a cheap shot to take on the TA when tough decisions have to be taken; it must not take this easy option again.

Lindsay Hoyle: I totally agree: promotion is wanting and it should be given. I wholly agree, and the higher up the ranking we can go, the better it will be. Not so long ago, it only went up to brigadier; at least we have now achieved a general—only for the second time, I believe, so we should of course go up to a two-star officer. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct about that.
	We can all score points, but we should think about the effect on our armed forces. We all remember the Balkans. When the Cheshires were serving out in the Balkans with redundancy notices in their top pockets, it had a devastating effect on recruitment and the future of the Army—just as this recent episode has done. Please, Ministers, learn from this. It is crucial to do so.
	Afghanistan has, of course, proved a major challenge to the regulars and the TA. Serving out there is without doubt a challenge for both of them. We pay tribute to those who have lost their lives and those who have suffered horrendous injuries. There is no doubt that the investment we have put into the medical services has been crucial to getting people badly injured on the front line back to Selly Oak and to ensuring that they get the best of treatment. We must recognise that lives are saved that would previously have been lost. We must ensure that we never lose that commitment.
	I also lost a constituent, Royal Marine Holland, who tragically died in Afghanistan. We know the heartfelt experience of seeing a body coming back to this country for burial; there is nothing more moving than seeing someone come home in those circumstances after serving their country. It is a tragedy when we lose so many young lives. We have to invest: whatever the requirement, whatever the need, we must meet it. We can do so only through commitment—and not, as I say, by point scoring. I want to touch on another issue very close to my heart—the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, which is not allowed to serve in Afghanistan. Although it has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the past, for some unknown reason someone has decided that it is not insured to serve in Afghanistan, which is an absolute tragedy. We were promised that the bar would be reviewed and lifted, but—I do not blame Ministers for this, because the matter never reached them—someone somewhere in the chain of command prevented that from happening. The regiment contains both regulars and TA members, and it seems ridiculous that people who wish to serve cannot do so. I hope that the Minister will investigate, will shake people up within the command structure, and will ensure that the decision can be changed.

Lindsay Hoyle: Absolutely. We cannot give thanks enough to the businesses in this country that allow their employees to go out to Afghanistan, or wherever they may be deployed. It interrupts business, and puts a strain on small businesses in particular. I cannot give enough thanks to the businesses in our area in Lancashire, because without doubt we would not have been able to deploy the numbers that we have deployed without their support. I want to be able to reassure businesses—and I am sure that the Minister has taken this on board—that the TA has a future, that we welcome their commitment to the TA, and that there will be an equally strong commitment from the Government. We must retain that link, and ensure that it will never be destroyed.
	It will be a privilege to walk to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday with the TA, and we must give thanks to it now that it has passed its 100th birthday. We have already celebrated the centenary of what is a modern TA—a TA that we look forward to seeing throughout the next 100 years. There are many tough decisions ahead, but this Government must never, ever make the wrong decision again.

Hugo Swire: This has been an unhappy day for the Ministry of Defence and the ministerial team. It started off with a statement on Nimrod that exposed institutional flaws in MOD culture, and now Ministers have had to come to the Front Bench to acknowledge a volte-face as a result of the Prime Minister's direct interference.
	There has been much recent talk that this House should become more responsive to events and that topical debates should respond to the events of the day. If such proposals had been put in place, we probably would not be having this debate, as it was chosen at a time when the future of the Territorial Army was under greater threat, with the threat of withdrawing £20 million—then reduced to £17 million—from the training budget. None the less, we are where we are and most of us welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has intervened and instructed the Secretary of State for Defence to return us to the position we were in about three days ago.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about topical debates. It is worth remembering that this debate was called by the Conservative Opposition—and also that we forced the Government to make their U-turn on the decision—in a week when the topical debate is on the safety of fireworks. That is what the Government believe to be important.

Lindsay Hoyle: We must dismiss that last point. Members from both sides of the House came together. Rightly, Back Benchers went to see the Prime Minister and put on a lot of pressure. The House working together is what changed the decision, and we should acknowledge that instead of engaging in this cheap political points scoring.

Hugo Swire: Yes, as I said, we are where we are. I do not believe there has been much political points scoring from those on the Conservative Benches. Quite a number of my hon. Friends are actively serving in the reserve forces and the TA, and often are not here in the Chamber because they are deployed in Afghanistan. It is hard to claim that they are trying to score political points.
	The Secretary of State's speech and the rest of the debate have highlighted the confusion as to whether the Army is at full strength. The Army is clearly not at full strength, but, by the Secretary of State's own admission, the Treasury has not provided sufficient funds if the Army were at full strength. In other words, the Army is—as it ever was, and as it will continue to be—reliant on the reserves and the TA. As has been pointed out, this economic recession—in large part created by this Government—has driven up the number of men and women who are queuing up to join both the TA and, in particular, the Regular Army. That could, perhaps, have been anticipated.
	I want to say again that the recent political events have caused huge upset in the TA. I am not sure that the Government fully recognise the damage that has been done, and I therefore draw their attention to some of the websites on Facebook and the Army Rumour Service web forums so that they can see for themselves how those involved in the TA feel about what is going on. The word "closed" has been put over the TA sign in many instances. Of course the TA is not closed—quite the reverse—but I think the Government need to reassure the TA that it is an integral part of one Army and that it is appreciated for what it does. As I will continue repeating, and as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned, the Government must also reassure employers, and particularly small employers who suffer disproportionately when their employees are sent abroad on active service, that they too are playing an integral part in this war in Afghanistan.
	It is a war in Afghanistan. It is not an operation or a deployment; it is a war, and if the Government were to admit that, we might not have the cheese-paring of the defence budget that has got us into this situation in the first place.
	I wish to discuss one more thing about the TA: how we look after its members when they are not deployed. Those in the Regular Army are quite well looked after even after they leave it, although there is a lot more that we could do on issues of mental health; we had a debate about that the other day. The difference is that when those in the TA return from active service they are, often within 48 hours or just a little longer, back to where they had left—in their regular jobs—without the supporting infrastructure of the regimental family, which can so often look out for those suffering mental distress as a result of having served. A disproportionate amount—I believe it is the majority—of those in the TA are serving, particularly in Afghanistan, as medics and come across far more horrific incidents than many of those in the regular forces. We need to examine what is being done should they encounter problems when they get home.
	The reserves mental health programme, which has been available to TA and regular reservists since January 2003, is doing a good job. It is a helpful programme, but it does little to overcome soldiers' reluctance to come forward to discuss mental health issues. Again, it is much easier if problems can be identified within the regimental family or the unit, but it is much more difficult when people have disappeared back into the society from which they came. A Royal British Legion survey of 500 general practitioners conducted in spring 2009 across England and Wales found that 85 per cent. knew nothing about the programme. That is a completely unacceptable figure, and I ask the Minister to see what he can do to increase awareness of the programme for the TA when its members are not serving.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Would he like to endorse remarks made by an individual from the King's centre, which is working on military mental health? It said that when the Territorials go as part of a formed unit with their own mates and their own officers the incidence of these problems is very much the same as in the Regular Army, but when they are taken off as individual reinforcements—this is for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend has described—the incidences are much higher.

Hugo Swire: Yes, of course I do. That is why I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State has said about mental health follow-up telephone calls, as are made in America, to all those who have served in the forces, be they TA or Regular Army, for some years after they have been deployed and when they return.
	I do not wish to detain the House for longer than I have to, because this debate almost need not take place now. I conclude by saying that on 8 November there will hardly be a Member from either side of this House who will not be taking part in Remembrance Sunday, honouring those who have given their lives for this country. When we stand in front of our Cenotaphs—I shall be in Exmouth, where we maintain that we have more wreaths than anywhere else, save the Cenotaph in London—we will not be remembering the gender or age of those who have died, we may not even be remembering the unit in which they served and we certainly will not be remembering whether they were in the regular forces, in the TA or in the reserve forces; we will be honouring them equally, because they have paid the ultimate price in giving their life for this country. If they are treated equally by us in death, so they should be treated in life by the Ministry of Defence.

Nigel Dodds: I wish to speak briefly on behalf of my party on this extremely important matter, which I and a number of other hon. and right hon. Members have raised at business questions over the past few weeks.
	I very much welcome the Government's reversal of their original decision on this £20 million cut. In this short debate, we have listened to some very powerful speeches, particularly from Members who have served or are serving in the Territorial Army. It is important to hear their contribution because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) has rightly said, we should be listening carefully to those Members who have first-hand experience and who know what it is all about.
	I also respect the views expressed by other Members, such as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who spoke powerfully, too. Members of parties have taken a common position of great concern and anger, reflecting the views of our constituents and of those who have served and are serving in the reserve forces, at the decision that was originally announced by the Government a number of weeks ago.
	Among Labour Back Benchers and in the ranks of the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties, there is a common view that that was the wrong decision. I welcome the fact that the Government have taken that on board and have come forward quickly to reverse that decision. We know, as has been spelled out, the damage that would have been done to recruitment, retention and morale—I do not want to rehearse all those arguments. The important issue that has been rightly highlighted and emphasised today is the longer-term damage that has been done. We can reverse the financial cut and restore the training and so on, which is quite right, but damage has been done, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and others, to the concept of one Army.
	Morale and the difficulties that it will cause for the future will need to be addressed. The Government, those in charge of the Territorial Army and others in the regulars need to turn their minds to how they will tackle that issue. They must make it clear, as the hon. Member for Chorley said, that they will not repeat this mistake ever again. We must recognise the extremely valuable and important part that the Territorial Army plays in our armed forces and that we cannot turn on and off the training and all that goes with it and expect things to carry on as normal. If the men and women are needed, they should be there and able to respond with the necessary degree of preparedness.
	I want to comment on an issue raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The Territorials are the public face of the military in our constituencies. They are the face of recruiting and the men and women who will be seen on parade at Remembrance day events in the run up to Remembrance Sunday.
	In my part of the world, Northern Ireland, we have the military band of the Territorial Army, which is now the only band in Northern Ireland that represents the armed forces. I received a number of representations, as did a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, from members of the Territorial Army who were very concerned at the fact that they were being asked to come along to events to commemorate the service of so many in Northern Ireland over the years—the sacrifice that has been made by so many in our armed forces—but were being told, "If you're going to go along, you're not going to get paid. Indeed, you might not be given permission to go along at all." That was extremely detrimental, demoralising and a terrible blow to those men and women. It would be a terrible signal to send out to the people in Northern Ireland, given the fantastic and gallant service and great sacrifice of our armed forces in Northern Ireland over the years.

Nigel Dodds: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Royal Irish Regiment band has raised a tremendous amount of funds and resources, and he is right to highlight that important aspect of the debate.
	It is right to put on record again the thanks of the whole House to the men and women of the Territorial Army for their sacrifice and work over the years on behalf of our country. More than 1,000 men and women from Northern Ireland have been in operational deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is a significant proportion of the reserve force in Northern Ireland. They go willingly, but they deserve the full support of the Government and the Ministry of Defence.
	They need to know that they will have the training that they need to achieve the necessary degree of preparedness. We have heard all sorts of elaborate and Machiavellian conspiracy theories in this debate about who might have been responsible for the cuts proposal in the first place. Whoever they are—whether they are in the Ministry of Defence or among the generals—they must learn the lesson from this episode, and from the strong feelings represented on both sides of the House this afternoon. That lesson is that never again can such an approach be taken, and that the Territorial Army and the reserve forces must get our full support as an integral part of the Army.

Chloe Smith: I rise to speak on behalf of the 20 members of A Company Third Royal Anglian Regiment who are being deployed to Afghanistan from my constituency. Previously, more than 100 members of that company have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further 150 from the overall regiment will be going to Cyprus in 2011. That serves to underline the need for ongoing training, as I am sure that hon. Members from all quarters of the House agree. I join the tributes paid by this House at Prime Minister's Question Time and on other occasions to the work of our armed forces. I know that all hon. Members agree with me in that regard, too.
	This political fiasco has rolled on for 48 hours, during which time I have been touch with the captain of A Company Third Royal Anglians. He is based locally in Norwich, and I want to highlight to the House a number of the things that he told me. Other hon. Members know far more about battlefield activities than I do, so my intention is to speak about the other activities that my local troops tell me that Territorial Army members undertake for their country.
	Members of the Territorial Army devote a huge amount of unpaid time to their country. For example, they prepare lessons during the week, outside the training hours that we have been debating. They also make phone calls to troops and their families, and write endless e-mails—we all know how much time e-mails take up every day.
	Not only do Territorial Army members run training, take part in training and see action on the battlefield, but they provide welfare for troops on deployment and for those troops' families. The Territorials' work includes running the family coffee mornings and doing the small but essential things that I hope that colleagues with more direct experience than me acknowledge have to take place.
	My contact with troops in my constituency, and the political fiasco that has taken place here, have made it clear to me that the unpaid time that troops put in, and the good will that they commit, are not the only things that we must acknowledge. We must also be aware of the vulnerability that they suffer if they do not receive the training that they need, and of the fact that they need time and resources to carry out the welfare work for troops and families that I have described.
	Of course, I join other hon. Members in welcoming the reinstatement of the training budget. I am sure that no one here would disagree with that, but the Government must take further steps to put matters right. It is not just a public relations disaster: it is also, as other hon. Members have made very clear, a disaster for morale, recruitment and retention. It is also a potential disaster for the future safety of our troops and our country if it is considered acceptable for a Government to execute such a U-turn when it comes to our troops' welfare.
	The Government should be ashamed of themselves. If they are not ashamed already, I shall finish by quoting one further point from the A Company captain:
	"We will have no formal representation at the Norwich Remembrance Parade as I won't insist that troops attend when they are getting no financial compensation (even travel expenses) and I am not authorised to spend money on fuel to run the Company minibus from Aylsham Road to the City Centre and back."
	I see that hon. Members are shaking their heads at that. To me, that is shocking and something of which the Government should continue to be ashamed, even after the U-turn that they have made this week.
	I welcome the constructive tone of the rest of the debate. There is much good feeling in the Chamber that should be built upon for the future, but there is still something rotten in the state of the MOD, if it is considered acceptable not to support troops, whether part-time or full-time, in getting to a Remembrance day ceremony. Many Members, myself included, are wearing poppies today, to show our support for the Royal British Legion and the work that goes into the run-up to 8 November this year and Remembrance day every year. Will the Minister—and, indeed, the now absent Secretary of State—join me by putting his hand in his pocket and giving 20 quid to my Norwich heroes?

David Davies: I begin by paying tribute to Rifleman Jamie Gunn, Private Kyle Adams and Private Richard Hunt, who lost their lives in Afghanistan. I spoke to some of their parents this morning. The experience of attending their funerals and meeting their families has made me realise beyond any doubt that the real cost of the war in Afghanistan is not measured in money. That is irrelevant. The cost is in human lives. That is one lesson that we should all remember.
	My own military experience is far more humble than that of those soldiers or of many hon. Members. I spent 18 months in the Territorial Army in 104 Air Defence Regiment in Newport back in the 1980s, at a time when the TA was seen in a very different light from the way it is seen now. We were not seen as being quite the same as Regular Army troops, and we were often jokingly referred to as the SAS—the Saturday and Sunday soldiers, or in terms rather less polite than that.
	However, I learned quite a few lessons from the experience. Perhaps the most important was this. We used to train in three different ways. We would turn up every Tuesday night, every other weekend and for two weeks at the annual camp. I presume that the training schedule is fairly similar today. The one thing that I knew even at the age of 18, without a lot of experience of life, was that that weekly training session, the so-called drill night, was extremely important.
	I do not know what was going through people's minds when they thought it would be a good idea to get rid of that training. Did they think that drill night meant just a number of people marching up and down, and that that was not important? That is not the case, and it has not been the case for any unit, as far as I am aware. Drill night consisted of a little bit of drilling, yes, but also vehicle maintenance, weapons training, fitness training, map reading—a host of activities, all of which are vital soldiering activities. More than that, there was something else going on that may not have been quite so obvious to us at the time. We were knitting together and becoming cohesive as a unit. It is very important that people who are full-time civilians and part-time soldiers think of themselves as soldiers on a regular basis. That is what that one night a week enabled us to do.
	The amount of money that we were being paid was very small. At that time of my life, I was doing manual jobs, but I did not think the money was particularly great. Nobody was doing it for the money. It was not about the money and never has been for TA soldiers, because any one of them could go and earn far more doing something else if they wanted a part-time job. But the money is important, because it sends out a message to people who are willing to give that commitment. It sends a message that the state respects them and wants to thank them for the time that they are giving up.
	I can speak from personal experience only about the late 1980s. It is quite different now. The level of commitment is much greater. I never thought for one minute that by joining the TA in Newport, I would ever be sent off to war. It is highly unlikely that I would have been, and in fact I never got beyond Salisbury plain, but people who join the Territorial Army these days know that it is very likely indeed that they will end up in a war zone. The regiment that I represent, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, has sent dozens of soldiers out to Iraq, where they have performed brilliantly. They will be deploying to Afghanistan later this year. These are people who have comfortable civilian jobs back in Monmouthshire, yet they are willing to spend six months of their life in a war zone for very little reward.

David Davies: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is about showing the Territorial Army that we respect its commitment. At least three TA soldiers have lost their lives already in the conflict in Afghanistan.
	It is astonishing that anyone thought that it would be a good idea to save £20 million by scrapping the drill nights. The Secretary of State, who sadly is no longer in his place—perhaps he has other things to do—asked for suggestions for saving money, and I tried to intervene. If he wanted such suggestions, they are easy to find. The MOD spent more than 100 times that £20 million cut refurbishing its own offices at a cost of about £2.4 billion. It has spent millions of pounds on consultants during the last few years. Presumably they are helping the equally well-paid MOD officials who cannot do their jobs properly without the consultants. Perhaps we could get rid of some of those consultants, or get rid of some of the MOD officials who cannot do their jobs without them. I am pretty certain that there is £20 million saving to be made there without affecting anybody's life. The MOD was even able to spend £250,000 on a work of modern art, because its spokesman said that they did not want pictures of dead admirals hanging around in the MOD headquarters.
	I am pretty confident that, humble Back Bencher that I am, if I were given an afternoon in the Treasury I could come up with £20 million of cuts for the Government. I would start off by going through the back pages of  The Guardian jobs section for the past 12 months, find everyone who got the jobs that were advertised and fire them all. Then I would look at anything with the word "equality" in it, because there would be a saving there as well.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is about not just how we look after our soldiers while they are on the field of battle, but how we look after them and their families at home and in their barracks? Is it not true that there is pressure on the budget to improve the infrastructure for military families, and that it is being cut? He referred to the huge amount of money spent on refurbishing the MOD building. Is it not unfair that soldiers and their families face the prospect of living in sub-standard accommodation because of further cuts?

James Gray: I add my contribution, as the chairman of the all-party Army group, to the very many magnificent speeches that we have heard, from all parts of the House, praising the fantastic work that the Territorial Army has done and will do, not only on deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq but here at home. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who most recently did precisely that. His regiment, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, has the distinction of being the only regiment in the British Army to have "Royal" in its name twice. That is very unusual. It claims to be the senior regiment in the Territorial Army—outdone, of course, only by my regiment, the Honourable Artillery Company, which is many hundreds of years older than his.

James Gray: The whole House will have the opportunity to thank the Territorial Army soldiers who are currently deployed in Afghanistan, when the all-party Army group next welcomes the brigade returning from that country. That is on Tuesday 18 November, at 3.30 pm, when soldiers will march once again through Carriage Gates, by kind permission of Mr. Speaker. I very much hope that hon. Members will join me there to thank those soldiers for all that they have done.
	However, the important point is that many soldiers in that body of 120 people, or thereabouts, will be Territorial Army soldiers. I strongly support the concept of one Army and the fact that one cannot tell the difference between a regular soldier and a TA soldier. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who said that the TA should be deployed only as formed units. The one-Army concept means that most of the 20,000 TA soldiers who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been trickle-deployed, not deployed as formed units. Nowadays, it is much better that our TA soldiers should be ready to be deployed individually in regular units rather than necessarily as formed units.

James Gray: My own experience of the TA and the contacts I have with TA personnel very much confirm what my hon. Friend says. It is of course true that soldiers of all kinds, whether regular or territorial, would much prefer to be deployed with their mates—with their battalion or unit, or whatever it may be. However, most of the brigades currently deployed in Afghanistan are very mixed, hybrid brigades—there is almost no regular battalion that will be deployed as a formed unit with nobody else attached to it. I am afraid that the days are long gone when we would like to think of our TA units as battalions marching out of the front gates of the drill hall, marching into battle, and coming back. I am not sure that that is a correct part of modern warfare.
	There is an aspect of the debate with which I am a little uneasy. There has been almost a feeling of collective relief at the astonishing U-turn that the Government have performed in recent days, with praise for Ministers for being so wise as to undertake it. There has been lots of talk about how it is a cross-party matter, and how it was really to do with the Army: "It was those funny generals—they did it. We Ministers went along with it for a bit, but now we have seen through it, and because we are wise Ministers we have reversed it and said, 'Please don't do that again, you naughty generals, because we're clever Labour Ministers and we're going to reverse it.'" I am sorry to bring an element of party political disagreement into the debate, but the fact is that this was done by a Labour Government.
	Only two days ago, the Minister for the Armed Forces came along to the all-party group on reserve forces and told us how important it was that these cuts should go ahead. Then, under pressure, he said: "Well, all right, I'll tell you what we'll do. We won't cut this £20 million out of the TA budget, we won't close the TA down—we'll allow the boys to get together one Wednesday a month. Won't that help you? That will cost us £2.5 million. Aren't I being a nice Minister?" These cuts were made by the Government. If the Minister did not know about them, he jolly well should have done, and he must take responsibility for them. It was he and his colleagues who decided that the TA would effectively be closed down for six months from today. The notion that people could come back after that and go through their pre-deployment training, as the Minister kept saying, is absolutely nonsensical. The TA would effectively have been destroyed by the action that this Government took.
	It is only because the Conservative party called today's debate and tabled this motion that the Government Whips, no doubt correctly, told their bosses that they were going to lose. They knew that there were plenty of Labour Back Benchers who would either vote with us or abstain, with the Liberal Democrats and the minor parties voting with us too. The Chief Whip got in touch with the Prime Minister and said, "You are going to lose a vote on Wednesday. You are going to be humiliated over this ridiculous decision you've taken about the TA, just as you were humiliated over the ridiculous decision you took about the Gurkha pensions. You, Mr. Prime Minister, are going to lose, and therefore we've got to find an extra £20 million. We're going to turn this round, not because we think it's the right thing to do but because we're yet again afraid of being humiliated in the House of Commons." That is a disgrace. This Government chose effectively to close down the TA for six months, and then, under pressure, they came back and said, "We're worried about this. We've suddenly realised that an awful lot of TA people will complain about it, so we'll give you one night a month back for training."
	The decision was taken completely against the advice of the two-star generals and other senior people in the TA who advise the Government on this matter. They did not like it at all, but none the less went along with it. A two-star general, Major-General Simon Lalor—a first-class general he is too—came along to the all-party group on Tuesday and was not permitted to speak by the Minister, who insisted that he should speak, that it was a political matter, and that he should take the decision. The generals and others who were at that meeting were not allowed to speak. It was interesting to see that they were totally opposed to it. This Government decided to do this. They gave in very briefly with their one-night-a-month concept; now they have been forced, through straightforward political realities, to reverse their disgraceful decision.
	I hope that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, he will not palm us off with platitudes about how wonderful the Territorial Army is or say that he is somehow all in favour of it. I hope that he will apologise for the ridiculous decision that was taken and for being humiliated and having to turn it around.

Philip Dunne: I am pleased to have the opportunity in the final stages of this debate to make a modest contribution about some aspects of the TA that have not been covered in depth. I should perhaps declare that as a schoolboy I was a cadet in the school cadet force, and at university I was a member of the air squadron reserve. I am told that had there been a war in the 15 years after I left the air squadron, I would have had a military role of air taxi to senior VIPs such as Government Ministers or generals. I am sure that that is not the only reason why people are hugely relieved that we did not have to go to war.
	I wish to touch on aspects of the TA's functions that seem to have fallen out of the equation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith) mentioned in her excellent contribution that the TA's role in support of the regular forces under the one-Army notion takes place not just in active theatre but in other operations beyond UK territory. For example, I understand that the commitment of British forces in Operation Tosca, the UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus, is now entirely staffed by a TA company. Its strength varies according to circumstances, but up to 100 members of the TA are on duty in Cyprus at any time, more or less unsupported by regular forces. There are TA contributions to Operation Fingal, continuing contributions in Kosovo, and the much more commented-on contributions in Afghanistan and, in recent years, Iraq.
	Had the cut in training gone through as proposed, the Government indicated that there would not be any shortfall in training for deployment into active theatre. However, it was not made at all clear whether it would affect deployment to other theatres and peacekeeping missions internationally. That aspect had been forgotten.
	Secondly, I wish to mention the role that the TA plays in supporting the civilian powers. The green goddesses are no longer in commission, but the TA has a clear and distinct role in supporting the civilian powers' response to emergencies. That cannot be done without a degree of training. It is all very well to have bodies of men and women called up to provide support in an emergency, but they will be of no use whatever unless it is quite clear what their function will be. Providing clear instruction and direction during an emergency obviously requires training.
	In recent times, the TA has been on stand-by and at the Government's disposal, although it has not been called up, to respond to flooding incidents all round the country. In 2007 in my own area, it was on stand-by to assist during the flooding in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire.
	The Government have had to contend with significant animal health challenges and emergencies in recent years, such as foot and mouth and the threats posed by bluetongue, which thankfully has not materialised, and H1N1. On all those occasions, the Government had the resources of the TA at their disposal. The Royal Irish Regiment, which is based in Tern Hill in Shropshire, in my constituency, was tasked with a bluetongue response a very short time after coming back from active duty in Afghanistan. That may or may not have been an appropriate military decision, but with a fully functioning TA the Government had the option of using alternative forces had an emergency arisen. The idea that the TA would still have been available to help with civil contingencies if it had lost the ability to train for the period that was intended is simply not right.
	The third aspect of the TA's role that I do not think has been properly expressed hitherto this evening is the link between the Army and civil society. The TA plays a considerable role in representing the Army and the other armed services in engagement with the public. Colleagues have discussed the role that it will play at Remembrance services over the next couple of weeks, but there is a continuous programme of education, and visits to schools, clubs and sports clubs for recruitment purposes. Many of us will have seen vans turning up in shopping centres and high streets in our constituencies on Saturdays. The people manning them and banging the recruitment drum are typically TA volunteers.
	Regular units recruit from the TA, as a direct consequence of the exposure to the Army that the TA provides. In my own area, the Mercian Regiment has a current strength of 80, out of which, in the past 12 months alone, three officers and 11 soldiers were recruited directly into the regular forces. That is a very cost-effective recruitment method for the regular forces, and it simply would not happen if the TA did not meet regularly, and if TA members did not have the spirit, bonhomie and cadre that they get from their regular training.
	The considerable anxiety that was expressed across the House by Members who have TA units within their constituencies was to do with that corps esprit. If there was no regular weekend connection between units in the TA, as appropriate each month, there would simply be no rationale to continue to turn up. The idea that the training tap can be switched on and off, as the Government seemed to indicate, was so far removed from the reality of what was happening on the ground as to stretch belief that the Government have any idea what the TA does on training nights.
	In my area, there was a suggestion that people were thinking about their futures. Their families will already have had considerable concerns about the degree to which individuals commit themselves to the TA, which they do for very little monetary reward. If people were asked to volunteer for no reward at all, without any contribution to travel costs, or without confidence that anything would actually be happening if they turned up at the drill hall, another pressure would be brought to bear on them not to bother any longer and to go off and do their volunteering where it would be properly valued. That is another social factor that the Government completely failed to grasp.
	I encourage the Minister to step forward to the Dispatch Box in a different spirit from that which he has had to have in the last 48 hours. He has had the most hapless task. During the excellent Adjournment debate on Monday evening, he listened to a very thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster), who speaks with considerable knowledge given his experiences on active duty with the TA, but was unable to offer any kind of defence for the Government proposals. He then had to spend Tuesday being berated—I presume with senior colleagues—by Labour Back Benchers, and by all accounts, generals. Later, he had to front up to the Prime Minister and tell him that he must change his mind. I suspect that that is not a task that any junior Minister relishes in the dying days of this Government. However, he is now in a position, in his response to the debate, to make a positive statement of the Government's commitment to the TA, which I sincerely hope he does.

Andrew Murrison: We have had an extremely good debate, with 10 speeches from Back Benchers. Most of them have been concise and to the point, and we must be grateful for that brevity. It was a debate of high quality—one speaker from the Democratic Unionist party, two Labour and seven Conservative speakers, but no Liberal Democrat Back Benchers.
	I declare my interest, as entered in the register, as a medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. I also wish to express some sadness that so much grief could have been caused by an attempt to squeeze just £17.5 million from the Territorial Army. Ministers enthuse over the so-called one Army concept, and we have heard a lot about that this evening, as well as talk of reservists being twice citizens. Words are cheap, and I fear that Ministers' rhetoric has not necessarily been matched by their actions over the past two weeks.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) wondered how the Secretary of State had got himself into such a mess. The hon. Gentleman was also uncharacteristically churlish about our motion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and I hastily crafted late last night when the Minister effected his U-turn. I did not see the Liberal Democrats in the Table Office, and it would of course have been open to them to have tabled an amendment.
	As a regular and a reservist, I have seen just how easy it is to plunder the territorial, whether that be the TA, the special constabulary or the retained fire service. There is an almost institutional tendency for the top brass to recommend savings from reservists or part-timers. Territorials are caught in a sort of pincer movement between the generals and the accountants, with the budgeteers knowing full well that cuts to the TA produce immediate savings, while cuts to the regulars do not. I fear that Ministers have been badly advised throughout this, and it is a pity that they took the advice that they were being offered.
	The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) was typically eloquent, but he is not in his place, so I shall not spend too much time praising him. He is a veteran of five parliamentary tours of Afghanistan and spoke passionately in support of the reserves and in favour of the one Army concept. He saw the paw prints of accountants over the past couple of weeks and he said, rightly, that those who know the price of everything often know the value of nothing. He doubted that there would be victory in Afghanistan, and by that I think that he meant victory in the classic sense. He thought that more resources should be given to our military and, in particular, to our reserve forces, and that accountants should be put in their place. There are plenty of accountants in this House who would probably disagree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) is an ex-Territorial. He spoke extremely well about training and operating as one Army, and in favour of formed units, which come up in debate a lot in connection with the TA. We appreciate their importance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has been especially strenuous in his support for them and for command opportunities for people in the TA. We are grateful to him for that, and he is, of course, absolutely right.
	It is difficult to serve in a formed unit if those involved do not train together, as I know full well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater feared that the events of the past few days would cause lasting damage, and I think that we are all agreed, to a varying degree, that there will be a residue from how this has played out over the past four weeks or so.
	In a typically impassioned contribution, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) talked about the lessons of the past not being learned, and if that is the case it is a great pity—although the circumstances of today are very different to those that applied in the 1990s. He also talked about the one Army concept being badly dented by the past few days and hoped that Ministers would do what they can to restore the confidence that the Territorials have in his Government, which has been so seriously damaged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) raised the important point about employers, who will have looked at what has happened over the past few days and wondered whether they were right to be helpful to those employees who are Territorials or reservists. Employers will reason, "Well, if the Government do not hold reservists in the esteem that they should, why should we go to the effort of sparing them and sustaining real cost in many cases?" That is an important point to make, and I hope that Ministers will send out the clear message to employers who might be tempted to think along those lines that, in fact, Territorials are an essential part of our military capability. I also hope that they will do what they can to repair any damage that might have been done by what has happened over the past fortnight or so.
	My hon. Friend also talked about reservists' mental health. It is important to reflect that Territorials in particular are at risk from mental health problems attributable to service. The reasons are very complex and have a great deal to do with the fact that regulars come back and are still part of a unit, whereas very often Territorials—in particular, augmentees—are not, and so are especially at risk. It is important that we look after them. He also pointed out rather poignantly that on Remembrance Sunday we will be remembering reservists and regulars equally. Again, he used that comment to demonstrate the importance of the one Army concept applying in reality. I should add that there is a naval equivalent—the concept of being all of one company.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) commended the Government on reversing their position. I think that he was very generous in his remarks. He pointed out what is obviously right—that the reversal of the Government's position was the result of pressure from all directions. He also emphasised the importance of the one Army concept and talked about the damage to morale that the threat to funding causes, with particular reference to military bands and the unique circumstances and contribution of the men and women of Northern Ireland.
	The offending in-year savings measures emerged in a Headquarters Land Forces letter dated 12 October. We should bear in mind that despite the largesse that emerged last night, the leaked cuts to the officer training corps, cadet forces, Army recruiting, capital work on soldiers' accommodation and service schools endure. I hope that the Minister will touch on those matters when he responds.
	On 14 October, the Prime Minister, when questioned on the TA cuts contained in the 12 October briefing note, gave every appearance of not having a clue what was going on. On Monday, we were then treated to a grudging one-night-a-month concession costing £2.5 million before the final climbdown on the TA, but not on the rest of the leaked cuts, including—this is the context of today's debate—those to the OTC and Army cadets. That deeply worrying episode suggests two things. The first is that the Government simply did not understand the impact that the cuts might have had on the TA, and the second is that all rational thought has gone from the MOD ministerial corridor in the last days of this Administration.
	The October Public Accounts Committee report on support to high-intensity operations noted that training for regulars for contingent operations was entering what was referred to as "hibernation" to fund deployment-related training—"hibernation" is a horrible term, but it appears to have crept into the military lexicography in recent years. The PAC expressed the fear that we would not be
	"able to regenerate such capabilities...after hibernation."
	We might be able to tuck up regulars in a warm box, with plenty of straw, and wake them up in the spring, but Territorial soldiers do not "hibernate". Without training, they will go and find something else to do, and they will never look back. Why has it taken two weeks of muddle for Ministers to accept something that, on the Conservative Benches at least, was blindingly obvious?
	Ministers have told us that regulars are now being recruited to strength. They asserted that this triumph prompted the cuts that have caused so much heartache. The implications are quite staggering. They are saying that financial balance at the MOD has up until now assumed an under-strength Regular Army at a time when we are heavily engaged in conflict in Afghanistan. However, the Opposition try to be helpful when we can, so let us see whether we can help Ministers out of the financial conundrum that they are left to struggle with after the Government's U-turn. Against their regular counterparts, Territorials are as cheap as chips. The National Audit Office has pointed out that non-deployed TA soldiers cost £10,000 a year, against £55,000 for a regular. The deployed costs will be lower too, given superannuation and the fact that in practice reservists do not have access to many of the regulars' benefits.
	The calculation has also been done by our allies, who, unlike us, have acted on it. One quarter of Britain's total strategic forces is provided by the reserves. In the US, Canada and Australia, the figures are 53, 42 and 41 per cent. respectively. Volunteer reservists, for example, make up 18 per cent. of trained strength in the UK, compared with at least 25 per cent. among our principal allies, yet this cost-effective force is set to decline even further, both in raw numbers and as a proportion of our overall strength. As we have heard, the note of 12 October says that TA trained strength was predicted to fall from 20,000 to 18,000 by April 2010, putting at risk the TA's ability to deliver 700 to 800 soldiers for Operation Herrick from 2012 onwards.
	How could Ministers even contemplate such a thing? Although last night's spectacular U-turn is welcome, much irreparable damage will have been done. I expect that the Minister of State will have received sackloads of similar protests from Territorials and those who support them, not least from among his constituents in Harlow. We have certainly received such protests, but unfortunately time does not allow me to read them out, much as I would like to.
	In April, the then Secretary of State endorsed each of the seven strategic recommendations in General Cottam's report on the strategic review of reserves. It is worth reminding ourselves of the central proposition, with a capital P, given in the report:
	"Defence will offer the challenge and reward which attracts people to volunteer, and undertakes to train and support them throughout their Service, including when mobilised and recuperating."
	The report asserts in recommendation 3, which let us remember was accepted by the Government, that
	"Training is pivotal to the Proposition."
	Indeed, the Secretary of State endorsed that at the Dispatch Box on 28 April. How is it that the Government considered driving a coach and horses through a blueprint for the reserves that they signed up to just six months ago?
	The latest wobble was the result of the Government's stated desire to focus all our efforts on Afghanistan, but expeditionary warfare has historically been the province of regular armies. Big state-on-state conflicts are inevitably the domain of irregulars. In presenting Territorials as second-class soldiers, Ministers are recklessly discounting unforeseen generic conflict or catastrophic civil contingency. May I remind Ministers that the Government's first priority is the defence of the United Kingdom? Important though a successful outcome of Operation Herrick undoubtedly is, nothing should divert us from that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith) made an excellent speech. She drew attention to A Company Third Royal Anglian, which is about to deploy, and we wish it well. She spoke powerfully about the cheese-paring that is so demoralising to both part-time and full-time troops. It also demoralises me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who is also an ex-Territorial, made an excellent contribution. He emphasised how much training fosters cohesion, and he was right to do so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) engaged in typically fighting talk. He mentioned that he was a veteran of the Honourable Artillery Company, and he rightly highlighted its antiquity. May I gently point out to him that the Royal Navy was funded by King Alfred in the 9th century? My hon. Friend praised augmentees versus formed units. That is a debate for another day, but as an augmentee, I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) also talked about the one Army concept. He rightly mentioned Operation Tosca, which I fear is often forgotten, but which is very important in the context of the Territorial Army.
	I hope that the Minister will answer the points so comprehensively put by hon. Members. Let me add a few of my own. Will he comment on the Territorial Army civil contingencies reaction force, which was launched in 2002 with great fanfare, but which was never funded? Is it safe to assume from the Secretary of State's prevarication when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 28 April that that tasking is now defunct?
	Will the Minister elaborate on the remarks made in April about the use of niche reservist skills and support for stabilisation operations and the Department for International Development? Will he also say what funding transfer will take place to permit such employment, a point that was ducked in the response to my hon. Friend on 28 April? What timeline exists for the Cottam review implementation team? When will the detailed single-service analysis required by General Cottam and accepted by Ministers be reported to the House?
	Let me gently remind the Minister of the fate of the last Government who tried to short-change the militia. Let me also express the hope that he will prove equal to the task of regaining the trust of the men and women of the Territorial Army, who have been so badly served over the past fortnight.

Paul Farrelly: Clearly, everyone welcomes the rethink on the £20 million for TA training. The armed forces review has caused some pain in the TA in my constituency, however, because it has led to the disbanding of the 58th Signals Squadron. That has clearly been the result of an Army decision to reorganise its signals function. However, the base in Cross Heath in Newcastle is used not only by the TA but by Army and Air Force cadets. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that that building will not close, and that the team at the Ministry of Defence will liaise with the cadets to ensure that they have a base from which to operate? The cadets are the recruits of the future.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The decision involving the communications-driven exercise to which he refers has affected a number of regiments across the country, and I believe that it was the right decision. However, we do not intend to close TA bases as a result of it. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) demonstrated his long-standing commitment to the Territorial Army. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on his 12 years' experience as a member of the TA. I pay tribute to the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and to his dedication to defence matters, particularly those involving the TA. He referred cogently to his and his constituents' experience of the real TA cuts under the last Conservative Government in the 1990s. He made that point very powerfully. He also asked me about the Gibraltar Regiment—an issue about which I know he is concerned. There is a moratorium on deployment at the moment because of concerns about the applicability of the armed forces compensation scheme and the way in which that relates to the Gibraltar Regiment. I understand my hon. Friend's concern and, as I said to him earlier, I am meeting officials tomorrow and I will try to come back to him on that as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) made a number of criticisms about the in-year measures, particularly about what he described as the cheese-paring of the defence budget. I would simply say to him that, at just under 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product, UK defence spending is high by international standards— [ Interruption. ] This is a serious point. In cash terms, we spend more on defence than any country except the United States of America and China. In that context, I want to ask for some realism in our debates about what we can afford for defence.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about mental health issues. Let me reassure him that the reserves mental health programme is an important strand of our work. It has been well addressed in the MOD, and includes the setting up of helplines and the provision of staff to support it. There is a need, as he said, to ensure that it is communicated across the TA, which is what we are determined to do.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), in what I thought was a measured and good contribution, made a number of important points. He asked me about the previous changes that we had announced and their impact on pre-deployment training. Let me be clear that, even though we are now in a different position, those changes would not have affected pre-deployment training—to Afghanistan, or indeed to any other deployment.
	I was going to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in the all-party group—until I heard what he had to say. Nevertheless, I will pay tribute— [Interruption.] "They don't like it up 'em," he says, but I will pay tribute to the work he does. On the decision making, it is a reality that this proposal was recommended by Land Forces and endorsed by the Chief of the General Staff. Nevertheless, we—Ministers and the Secretary of State—accept responsibility for it. That is where I have to say that I found the hon. Gentleman's attack on my role in coming to the all-party group on Monday a little wide of the mark. I deliberately took responsibility, instead of the general, for responding to the debate and to questions at the all-party group meeting because the decision was a political one, for which I felt responsible.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I know about the incredibly good work he does on behalf of the Territorial Army.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) made an important contribution about the TA's role in his constituency. I would genuinely like to congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith), who I know is new to the House, on her speech. She made a trenchant criticism of the Government—and in that, she is following in the footsteps of her predecessor, who was both an honourable and a genuine friend of mine.
	The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) made a number of criticisms. Through an intervention, I was able to make clear to him that his view of our role in Afghanistan differs not only from that of the Government, but from that of his own Front-Bench team. It is important to underline that despite the difficulties in Afghanistan, there is a clear and vast majority of MPs across the parties in support of what we are doing. That point should be made clear.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, started very well, decrying the fact that the official Opposition had engaged in a cheap stunt by altering their motion overnight to refer to the role of the Leader of the Opposition. Despite that, however, and despite the fact that £20 million is on the table from the Treasury to reverse the initial decision, the hon. Gentleman says that he is nevertheless going to vote with the Conservative Opposition this evening. I have to say that that is an even more confusing Liberal Democrat policy formulation process than is usually the case.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife also asked the Government to trust him and the House to be more involved in the decision-making process. Let me be clear that we face difficult challenges, and that I would like to do that. If we are going to do it, however, he and his party will have to face up to reductions in spending as well as increases, as that is the only realism that will allow us to move forward. In that regard, I have to say that I am not holding my breath.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me what would be sacrificed because of the changes announced in the last 24 hours, and what impact they would make on the Ministry of Defence. Let me be clear again that there will be no impact on the Ministry of Defence, as we have been able to manage the change through £20 million of additional funding from the Treasury—no ifs, no buts: this is additional money.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by saying that he welcomed the Government's decision, which he felt was the right one. He then talked about regular Army recruitment, which clearly costs more in training, saying that we should provide that money. I agree, but his argument is, of course, fatally undermined by the fact that he proposes not one penny extra in defence expenditure on top of what the Government are proposing. The immediate slashing of public spending to deal with the public deficit would make the job of any Government in managing our defence expenditure that much more difficult. I know that in private the hon. Gentleman shares that view, but he is hamstrung by the views of his Front-Bench colleagues. He is also holed below the water by the fact that people judge politicians not by what they say, but by what they do. Under this Government, defence expenditure has increased by 11 per cent. in real terms. In the last five years of the Conservative Government there were half a billion pounds' worth of cuts in defence each year. That is the reality, and I think it should be proclaimed loud and long.
	Neither I nor the Government will take lectures from the Conservative party on the TA. I say that very clearly and very precisely, because it was the last Conservative Government who cut Territorial Army liability numbers by a third in four years, from 90,000 to just over 60,000, at the same time as cutting the TA training budget. As I said earlier, the fact is that if we started slashing expenditure now to tackle the deficit, as the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues would have us do, none of this could be achieved without cuts significantly worse than those that were considered, and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
	Some criticisms have been made of the decision-making process. It has been said that we have performed a U-turn. Again, I will not take lectures on U-turns. A few weeks ago the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), told  The Times that he would engage in £30 billion-worth of defence cuts to the A400M aircraft programme, which involves two aircraft carriers. The following day, he was forced to retract that statement.

Bill Rammell: It was clearly printed as a result of discussion in which the shadow Chancellor had engaged, and I know for a fact that the Tory Front Benchers were very concerned about that commitment.
	The hon. Member for Westbury made a number of stringent attacks on me and on my ministerial colleagues. I understand his frustration. If the leader of my party had told General Dannatt that our defence team lacked expertise in defence matters, I would be frustrated as well. That is, of course, what the Leader of the Opposition told General Dannatt about the Conservative Front-Bench team.
	Let me conclude by making very clear that the Territorial Army and the UK reserve forces are an absolute credit to this country. In the last decade they have proved their worth as never before. As we speak, they are serving alongside our regular forces in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan must come first in terms of defence. That means not only drawing on the Treasury's reserves for the operations themselves, but looking across the defence budget to prioritise the activities that support our efforts in Afghanistan. It means that we must make tough choices on resources, and that is the reason for the process of decision-making in which we have engaged in recent weeks.
	Nevertheless, I think it right and proper for any Government who make a decision to listen to criticism and to concerns. We have heard representations from across the House. We understand the concerns that have been raised, particularly with regard to Territorial Army retention. We have now received assurances from the Treasury that this year additional ring-fenced money will be made available to ensure that the measures on TA training are no longer required, and the normal TA training regime will be restored as quickly as possible. That is important.
	As for the future, the Department undertakes an annual planning round in order to prioritise and allocate available resources for the next year. I can confirm today not only that we are making those changes, but that we do not plan to reduce levels of training available to members of the Territorial Army as part of the process. Perhaps Opposition Members would indicate whether they support that approach.
	Let me make it clear that we are absolutely right to put Afghanistan first. It is not possible to preach austerity, as the Opposition do, and then call foul whenever a measure is proposed to relieve budget pressures. We have listened: responsive government is right. There are those who will criticise us for changing our minds, but there are those who would have criticised us for obstinacy and irresponsibility had we done the opposite. That is politics. We were determined to do the right thing, that is what we have done, and I urge my colleagues to support me in the Chamber this evening.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House expresses its continued support for the role of the Territorial Army (TA); notes that the reserve forces have contributed some 20,000 personnel to operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans since 2002, most of them from the Territorial Army, and that 14 Territorials have died on those operations; welcomes the Government's additional £20 million ring-fenced by the Treasury for Territorial Army training; and further welcomes the Government's policy to ensure that TA members deployed to Afghanistan are fully and properly trained for their role and to ensure that, for all TA members, normal training will take place in the evening and at weekends."

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That Sir Stuart Bell, Liz Blackman, Nick Harvey, Mr Don Touhig and Sir George Young be appointed under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 as members of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament.
	Mr. Speaker, this motion, tabled in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, has been brought forward at your request. It sets out the nominees for membership of the new Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliament Standards Authority. It will follow similar lines to the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, and its composition and functions are defined in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—  [ Interruption. ]

Barbara Keeley: No. My comments will be very brief, and there will be opportunities—

Barbara Keeley: No, I will not give way at the moment.
	The Parliamentary Standards Act gives the Speaker's Committee two functions: to ratify the nomination of the Parliamentary Standards Authority chair and board members before they are put before the House, and to approve the estimate for the Parliamentary Standards Authority—in other words, its funding.
	The motion asks the House to appoint the remaining five members of the Committee. On behalf of the Government, and I hope the whole House, I commend it to the House.

George Young: I want to add a brief footnote to what we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the House, and to speak in favour of the motion. It appeared rather suddenly on today's Order Paper, but I hope that it is non-controversial.
	We on this side of the House support the creation a Speaker's Committee on IPSA, in accordance with the Act that was passed in July, with my party's support. We supported the Act because we strongly believe that MPs should no longer be placed in a situation where they determine their own allowances. We now look forward to the report from Sir Christopher Kelly to provide a blueprint for IPSA to work from. The leak of some its recommendations is extremely regrettable.
	The Parliamentary Standards Act specifies the membership of the Speaker's Committee and the names now appear on the Order Paper. I welcome those names, and I look forward to working with them.

George Young: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that IPSA is independent. All we are doing this evening is appointing a Committee to oversee the appointment of the chairman and the members of the committee. If the hon. Gentleman wants an assurance that IPSA will be independent, I hope that he got that in the debate that we had in July when IPSA was set up—an organisation for which I think he voted in the Lobby.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend repeated what the Deputy Leader of the House said about the limited role of the Committee, but does he not see that it would also have a role under section 5(4)(d) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which provides that
	"In preparing or revising the scheme"—
	for MPs' allowances—
	"the IPSA must consult . . . any committee of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker".
	Is that not the same Committee that we are discussing this evening?

George Young: Yes, but if my hon. Friend looks at that list, he will see that it is a very comprehensive list indeed, including Members of the House of Commons. I cannot think of a more embracing category than that. The fact that IPSA will also consult the Committee that is being constituted this evening is in no way exclusive and does not preclude other Members from giving their views.
	It is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to nominate both the membership of the board of IPSA and the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations—

David Heath: As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, the appointment of the Committee is part of the process that all sides of the House agreed by means of the Act setting up IPSA. The Committee will advise you, Mr. Speaker, in the appointments that you make, and it will deal with consultations, as has already been suggested, and with audit of the IPSA functions, when they are in place.
	It is essential that we get IPSA in place because we cannot effect the long-term reform of the system of allowances and expenses until it is in place. A great deal of publicity has, quite reasonably, been given to Sir Christopher Kelly's report, which was leaked. I agree about how unfortunate it is that the report was partially leaked. Partial information is the worst sort of information, because it makes people assume all sorts of things which may not be justified once they see the narrative and the text in the round. The Kelly report on its own is not a proposal for the regulation of the House. It is a proposal for the framework that IPSA will then set up, so IPSA's role is crucial.
	I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman when he asks what the timetable is expected to be. The Members who are being asked to sit on the Committee will have their work cut out if we are to see a Chairman and a board in place in a reasonable time scale that will enable them to do the work that is set out in statute. I have my doubts whether the timetable will be such as to see real and effective change before the expiry of this Parliament. That means that we may find ourselves in difficulties with either a dying Parliament in its last days setting up structures that will then not apply to it, or a new Parliament without experience having to grapple with this as the first matter on its agenda. There is concern about the time scale and any advice that the Deputy Leader of the House can give would be extremely helpful.
	The other point that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) rightly made and that I shall repeat concerns the audit function of this body in terms of the total package of costs for the organisation, but also more specifically the remuneration of board members, for instance. As an example to everybody else we need total transparency, and it is important that we and the public outside know exactly what considerations are being taken into account in setting up the new body, how it is to be set up, what remuneration levels will be, what funding levels will be, and how those funding levels will be justified. I look to the Committee when it is set up to ensure that transparency.
	Members' interventions have suggested a certain familiarity with some of the names that have been put forward, and it is hard to argue with the fact that they are rather familiar names. I suspect that the argument for that is continuity from what has existed before. At some stage we need to make a break, and there is some justification for saying that. But this Committee will have a limited lifetime. It will exist only until the end of the Parliament. It has a very limited framework of work. The motion plainly says
	"until the end of the present Parliament."
	So this membership is for a limited time and we need to look afresh in a new Parliament as to who are the right Members, how they will represent all parts of the House—both in terms of party political representation and their experience in the House—and at their outlook and what they can bring to this. We should look at that carefully immediately following a general election.
	I will certainly support the proposal in order to get the body up and running and doing its work, because there is some urgency. I hope, however, that the Deputy Leader of the House will hear in what I have said at least some caveats for the future, which I hope we will be able to take into account.

David Winnick: I shall be brief. However, I am not at all happy with the way in which we are going about matters. I would not dream of saying a word against any of the Members who are mentioned on the Order Paper—not my hon. Friends of course, and not the other Members either. But that does not alter the fact that we are starting afresh. The reputation and integrity of the House has been much damaged. There is no doubt about it. You nod your agreement, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that we would all agree that there is a need to restore public confidence as quickly as possible.
	The new body that has been set up—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is a move in the right direction, but when it comes to the names, inevitably the question will arise: why these people? Who nominated them? Do I take it that they have been nominated in the usual way by the Whips, and accordingly they are before us for approval? It is in no way to criticise those hon. Members when I say that I would be far happier if there was some sort of system whereby we could elect the Members involved, embracing, of course, the three political parties. I see no reason why not. You are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because you have been elected to the Chair, and it is your policy, as you have told the House, that the Deputy Speakers be elected. That is the right move, so, when it comes to what we agree is a fresh start to try to restore public confidence in allowances, expenses and all the rest of it, why do we have these names on the Order Paper? We have not been consulted. No one has consulted me, and if they have not consulted me, presumably no one else has been consulted apart from the usual channels. However, we are now expected to nod our approval.
	I shall not cause a Division over the matter, but I shall be very surprised if I am the only Member to hold this view. It is only right and proper to state clearly that, if we are to appoint such people, they should be subject to an internal election, which would give the matter far more legitimacy. It is for those reasons that I have made this brief speech.

Charles Walker: I am hugely impressed by the names that have been put forward for the Committee. It is a smorgasbord of big cheeses. However, I am concerned that there are not younger, thrusting and less experienced Members on it. I should not speak in my own cause, but I regard myself as young and thrusting; and I may raise this point light-heartedly, but I have a serious love for this place. The past two years have been traumatic for all Members, but the measures that Kelly and others have taken will impact on the next generation of young Members starting their parliamentary careers. I should very much like to champion their cause and colleagues' causes, and I should like to bring an innovative approach—a new approach—to the Committee. I have not sought high office in this place, and I shall never get high office, but that is not a shame, because I love and take pride in being a Back Bencher, and Back Benchers are important to this place and to our constitutional settlement.
	Mr. Speaker, I shall not try your patience, but let me give you one example of the innovative thinking that I shall bring to the role. Let us do away with paperwork and forms; let us take the personal additional accommodation expenditure allowance and make it subject to income tax at a Members' higher rate. Then, of course, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs would become the regulator of the scheme, the public would have confidence in it and we would be able to shed the civil servants who oversee the PAAE. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to rise, so I shall move on.

Charles Walker: I shall move on and conclude with this plea. The Committee would certainly benefit from having a young, dynamic Member on it. That young, dynamic Member may not be me; it may be another Member. But it is not too late to add a name to the great list—the smorgasbord of big cheeses—in front of us. What harm could we do by looking at that?

Christopher Chope: I think that the process that my hon. Friend needs to go through is to demonstrate a willingness to serve. I suspect that there are sufficient Members in the Chamber willing him to put his name forward and therefore prepared to sign up to a manuscript amendment for his name to go forward in substitution for one of the other names on the Order Paper. In order for that to happen, my hon. Friend—although I know that it would offend against his innate modesty—would have to take the initiative by demonstrating to his hon. Friends, and perhaps to Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Walsall, North, his willingness to serve and the fact that he would be happy to see a manuscript amendment put forward suggesting that his name be added.

Christopher Chope: It is rather like the definition of an elephant—when one sees one, one knows one. When we look at the right hon. Gentleman, we know that he is a senior and respected Member of this House, but I assure the House that he is not the person to whom I was referring in my remarks about the alleged leak by the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
	That takes us to another possibility that is being speculated on, which is that the document was leaked by the Prime Minister and No. 10 to try to divert attention from the climbdown over the Territorial Army and the embarrassment over the Nimrod report. I shall not embark further into that territory, because it is speculation. However, I emphasise that, as I raised with you in my point of order earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Kelly report has now effectively been published. A large number of Members are facing questions from their employees, the press and their families about the implications of that report for them.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, I agree with you on that, Mr. Speaker—I am certainly not qualified to carry out a leak inquiry. I am trying to ask the Deputy Leader of the House, who has admitted that this is an urgent issue and that that is why the motion is on the Order Paper at such short notice, to assure us that the Committee will be up and running in time to make the necessary appointments to IPSA. That will ensure that IPSA is in a position to take on board the recommendations of the Kelly committee as soon as they are published, so that there is not a period between the publication of those recommendations and the deliberations of the IPSA committee that will discuss them in accordance with the responsibilities placed upon it by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

Christopher Chope: Of course it could, if there was the will on the part of the Government. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will accept that, given the reality of the situation, it would be desirable and fair for the Kelly report to be published this week, rather than delayed until Wednesday of next week. In that way, we would not get more speculation—it keeps coming out gradually, in leaks, and no doubt that will be added to in this weekend's press if the report is not published now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In addition to the right hon. and learned Lady the Leader of the House and me, the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey), and the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), are proposed for membership of this Committee. I am looking forward with eager anticipation to the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the suitability or otherwise of those individuals to be members of the Committee.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps I could start off with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. He has been a loyal servant of the House for many years. The work he did from the Back Benches as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee was of immense value. It was authoritative and earned him great respect from all his colleagues.
	My only concern about his name being on the Order Paper is that he is no longer a Back-Bench Member; he is a shadow Minister. I hope that he will soon be the real thing—a real Secretary of State or the real Leader of the House. Schedule 3 to the 2009 Act, which sets out the terms of the membership of your Committee for IPSA, Mr. Speaker, states, in paragraph 1(d) that there should be
	"five members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown, appointed by the House of Commons."
	It is possible to argue that, inherently, those people should not really be shadow Ministers of the Crown either. They should be proper Back Benchers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.

Christopher Chope: That may be incidental. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is a worthy champion of Back Benchers' interests, but he is taken account of under paragraph 1(c) of schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, along with you, Mr. Speaker, under paragraph 1(a), and the Leader of the House of Commons under paragraph 1(b).
	My point is that in terms of the spirit of paragraph (d), when it refers to five Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, is a Back Bencher who is youthful and energetic—and the other expressions that he used—whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire would be bound to concede that he does not share those qualities, because he is inevitably tainted by being a shadow Minister, rather than a free spirit on the Back Benches, as he was for such a long time.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and I go back many years, and I shall not explain to the House the way in which we have interacted in various posts. He knows that the comments that I make are not directed at his integrity, which is 100 per cent. absolute, but at the fact that inevitably, by becoming a shadow Minister, he has become separate and apart from those of us who are not on the Front Bench.
	At the beginning, Mr. Speaker, you said that this is an important debate, and I am glad that we are having it now. It is very timely, for the reasons that I have already set out in relation to the need for clarification of the interaction between what Sir Christopher Kelly recommends and the work of the IPSA, especially the Speaker's Committee that we are appointing this evening.
	I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has decided whether to put his name forward—

Christopher Chope: If this debate has achieved nothing else, it has enabled my hon. Friend to make a strong case for being the first natural choice for membership of Committees such as this. I hope that it will be with a certain amount of remorse that my Front-Bench colleagues will say that they are sorry that they did not think of my hon. Friend for membership of this Committee. If my hon. Friend is not willing to put his name forward, we have a choice between all the people on the Order Paper or none of them.
	As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said—I share his reservations—we face a difficult choice. Either we vote against the lot or we allow matters to proceed. In anticipation of what I hope will be the Minister's response, I confirm that I would not be minded to vote down this list of worthy nominees. However, I would wish to have some hard evidence from the Minister of the urgency of this and how it will lead into the early appointment of the members of the IPSA and an early start to their work, perhaps before the turn of the year, so that they can get to grips with the recommendations that Sir Christopher Kelly has made and about which I hope we will learn more by the end of the week.

Barbara Keeley: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
	We have had this debate a number of times. I think it came up when we considered the nominations to the Parliamentary Reform Committee. I do not want to intrude on the Conservative party's obvious grief, but it is up to it to decide how it does this. It was open to it to have an election, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne could have put his name forward. That would have been fine. But it does not seem to have done that.
	Some points were made about the great and the good, cheese, a smorgasbord and all kinds of other things. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman)—we will all have to get our heads around her constituency name—is no longer in her place, but she looked rather surprised to find herself so elevated, if being a smorgasbord or cheese is an elevation. This Committee is not exactly the same as previous Committees with similar functions, and I am sure that she will relish the task before all members of the Committee.

David Winnick: I said earlier that I did not intend to press this matter to a Division, and I normally keep my word, so I shall not do so. However, may I press my hon. Friend? I am sure this was not her intention, but we should not dismiss the legitimacy of voting. It is very important. Obviously, she will not misunderstand me again when I say that this matter is not quite within her responsibility—it goes to a more senior level, as is bound to happen in government and the rest of it. I hope, therefore, that she will communicate with her senior colleagues on this matter. If it were put before the parliamentary Labour party, I believe that there would be a very strong case for this particular Committee to have the legitimacy of elections.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is right—that was a comment to the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues. However, this evening we have heard a degree of frustration that the same names crop up time and again on these so-called in-House Committees. There is a feeling that perhaps, sometimes, the advice of some of those Members has not been of the best quality.

Barbara Keeley: Those points have been aired well in this short debate, and I am sure that they will be taken on board. I do not know exactly how the process was gone through, but it might have been thought that, at this difficult and turbulent time—again, today, we find ourselves in such times—it was a fair idea to have people with experience of what has been happening and of the different schemes put together. However, I do not know, because I was not involved in the discussions.

Charles Walker: The problem is that often it is people with experience who get us into a mess in the first place. That is a problem with which many of my in-take—from 2005—on both sides of the House have to wrestle.

Barbara Keeley: I cannot help any further on that point. I am sure that all points have been made as well as possible.
	Let me turn to some of the other questions that have been asked in this debate. If there are any points that I cannot answer this evening, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will touch on them tomorrow or that we will be able to deal with them in the next few weeks.
	I understand that the recruitment of the chair and members of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is expected soon. In fact, a substantial part of the reason for our urgency in moving this evening's motion is that we need the Committee to be on board with the functions that I touched on earlier, in order to ratify the nomination of the chair and board members before they are put to the House. The Speaker's Committee will be a key part of that process.
	I was asked whether I could "shed any delight" on the timetable, which I thought was interesting for this time of day, although I assume that what was meant was "light". As far as I understand the progress on setting up the new authority, it has an interim chief executive, whom Mr. Speaker appointed. Tonight we are discussing the establishment of the Speaker's Committee, and very soon—once the Committee is convened—we would expect the board to be convened, also with its chair and members. All that work will go forward.
	Mention was made of remuneration. I am aware of some discussion about that. Points were also made about transparency. The 2009 Act specifies that Mr. Speaker will determine the terms and conditions for the chair and ordinary members, who will later be appointed by Her Majesty, on an address to the House. I am sure that the points that have been made about transparency have been well received this evening.

Andrew Turner: Is the hon. Lady saying that members of the Committee are shortly to be appointed—in other words, that she knows who they are—or that she does not yet know who they are and neither does anyone else?

Barbara Keeley: I think that the answer is yes. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is clearly an independent body—it has the word "independent" in its title. That is the key reason for moving to the new scheme and for our working so hard a couple of months ago to get the 2009 Act through. There will be consultation, but one of the new authority's key functions, as we recognised in setting it up, is to prepare, review and revise schemes of allowances.

Barbara Keeley: I do not think that it is our function this evening to discuss the Kelly report, but as I understand it, the report is due to be published next Wednesday. Its publication obviously involves outside printers, and there is a certain amount of work to be done. I have heard the points that have been raised this evening, but it is not a matter for this debate to do anything about that.
	On the timetable, I have laid out that there has been substantial movement. We are recruiting the board of IPSA; that is going ahead after you placed the adverts, Mr. Speaker. The new Committee, if we agree it this evening, will be able to go forward. The timetable, however, is not exact because we cannot set out a timetable for a board that does not exist yet. It will exist fairly soon, however, and we shall be able to make progress from there. There is now also an interim chief executive.
	A point was raised about staffing, and I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the staff of the House. I have met the unions representing all the staff of the House, and I know that there have been other meetings, and all their concerns are being taken on board. I think that that covers most of the questions—

Peter Bottomley: I am not sure who is advising the Leader of the House or the House authorities, but can we have an assurance—if not now, in a written statement later—that what would be required of an employer elsewhere in terms of the interests of the staff will be fulfilled here?

Barbara Keeley: I can do no more than say that I have been working on this, along with other people. An implementation team in the Ministry of Justice was working on setting up IPSA over the summer, and meetings and discussions have also been held with the trade unions. We had a lengthy meeting in which we discussed and noted all the concerns, but the difficulty that I have in dealing with them is that, until the board of the new authority is established, there is little that can be said about what it will do . It would not be right to hamper the setting up of the new authority or to constrain what it can do, but it will clearly move forward.

Barbara Keeley: All we can say on this is that everything will move as fast as it can. Given that we only debated this in the summer, the fact that we have worked across the summer and are now appointing the board and the Committee demonstrates that we have made very good progress.
	I want to conclude now, as that would be fair to Members—

Barbara Keeley: I shall not take any more interventions.
	On the matter of urgency, I do not feel that I need to come back to this matter. We moved the Bill through Parliament and decided to create the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority because it was the view of Members on both sides of the House, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, that it was no longer acceptable to the public that Members should set and pay their own allowances. That is a continual matter of urgency—

Barbara Keeley: No, I have said that I am not accepting any more interventions. I have touched on the fact that the terms and conditions for the chair and ordinary members are by statute—yours, Mr. Speaker, to decide and determine, as you have done. Hon. Members have raised a number of points about that, and I am sure that they have been listened to.
	The House is asked to appoint the remaining five members of this Committee. On behalf of the Government—and, I hope, the House—I commend this motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That Sir Stuart Bell, Liz Blackman, Nick Harvey, Mr Don Touhig and Sir George Young be appointed under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 as members of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament.

That the draft Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved .—( Mr. Watts. .)
	 Question agreed to.

Resolved,
	That the Order of the House of 13 July 2009 relating to the Committee on issue of privilege relating to police searches on the Parliamentary Estate and internal processes of the House Administration for granting permission for such action be amended in line 16 by leaving out '31 December 2009' and inserting '31 March 2010' .—( Mr. Watts .)

Motion made,
	That Mrs Janet Dean be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.—( Mr. Watts.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Motion made,
	That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee .—( Mr. Watts .)

Motion made,
	That Mary Creagh be discharged from the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be added .—( Mr. Watts .)

Motion made,
	That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added .—( Mr. Watts .)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Watts.)

David Heath: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity of using a short period of the House's time to talk about something that this country is very good at, which is invention and inventors. It has often been said that Britain is brilliant at invention, but it is sometimes said that Britain is not quite so good at the commercialisation of invention. I want to touch on that, but not from the point of view of large industry research and development, or the people engaged in scientific support for industry, but in support of individual inventors, by which I mean the people working in their garden sheds, their garages and their upstairs bedrooms in order to bring an idea they have fostered to the point at which it can become a reality.
	My interest in this subject was sparked by a visit I made a few weeks ago to an organisation called the south west inventors club, which I strongly recommend. It is a group of inventors, as the name says, from the south-west. They meet to exchange information and support each other; they help each other in the gradual development of their individual projects. When I was invited to go, I did not really know what to expect. I suspected that I would not see the caricature of the lone inventor—the sort of slightly distressed gentleman emerging from a shed with a blackened face and hair awry, or, in short, an eccentric. I knew that these were serious-minded people who were very different from that in their attitude.
	I was not disappointed. I met a variety of people. Some had a high level of scientific qualification and background; others did not, but had spotted an opportunity that they thought capable of being brought into reality. Some of the things developed in that club—sometimes by my constituents, sometimes not—had already been brought to market. A gentleman had invented a device for fitting to the filler caps of diesel cars to prevent people from inadvertently putting lead-free petrol into the tank. Anyone who has done that knows that it has a disastrous effect on the car and, in due course, on the pocket. The simple device he invented prevented that from happening. Incidentally, it cannot happen the other way around; one cannot put diesel into a lead-free car because the nozzle prevents it being done. I think that that invention is likely to become a big seller and a standard fitting on a lot of cars. I am very pleased that the inventor is a gentleman who lives in Podimore in my constituency.
	Another gentleman was demonstrating what he called a multi-stride tool, for use by carpenters, fitters and do-it-yourself enthusiasts to ensure the correct fitting of screws, handles and so forth to doors. He had devised it because he had realised that it was a tool that he himself needed. He had then brought it to market, and it is now being sold not just in Britain but in America, in major do-it-yourself stores. He had cracked it: he had reached that point of departure. I recall that some years ago a gentleman from Bower Hinton, also in my constituency, invented a completely new set of spanners. Working on a farm, he too had realised that such an invention was needed.
	What unites so many inventions is that once we have seen them, we think "How obvious", and wonder why on earth they have not always been there. The answer is that it was necessary for someone to have the necessary spark to invent them. As I have said, I was very impressed by many other inventions that I saw that evening, but I cannot speak about them because the intellectual property rights have not yet been ascertained, and they must therefore remain secret. What I can say is that I witnessed a display of mutual support and mutual giving of information. I also realised that there was a capacity problem, and also a problem with advice and support.
	I do not have up-to-date figures, but the figures that I have suggest that between 2002 and 2005 the number of patents filed fell from 20,000 to 17,000, which is a 15 per cent. drop. The patents that were filed must have been of better quality, because the number of patents granted increased by more than 13 per cent. Up to a fifth of all the patents filed were granted during that period. A quarter of the applications were made by lone inventors, which means that a large proportion of the inventions were developed not by big business or industry, but by the individual.
	What problems do inventors face? There is the problem of getting their ideas to the point at which they can be marketed successfully, part of which involves understanding the market itself: understanding what the market wants, and how their ideas fit into what is already there. Another problem is understanding what investors seek from a person whom they do not know and who wants to promote an idea. Inventors also sometimes have problems in filtering their ideas in order to identify the runners and the non-runners. That too may seem obvious, but it is not, and it requires expert help.
	Inventors often need advice on strategy: on the analysis of the market, competitors, and the skills that are required to enable them to take their inventions to market. Then they hit the big barrier of patenting and the legal issues associated with protecting their intellectual property rights. That involves expense, but it also involves expertise. They must know how to set about the process, and how to protect themselves from the rather better-equipped lawyers acting for businesses that might want to exploit their inventions. Then there is the development of a prototype. That too needs initial investment, which will often be hard to come by. They must get the invention off the drawing board and turn it from something built with string and plasticine into something that can be demonstrated to work, and demonstrated to work to the satisfaction of the partners that they will need in order to proceed.
	In some parts of the country there is a lack of support schemes, although in other parts there are good ones. The south west inventors club is an example of a good one, but provision is patchy. Support schemes are helpful in several ways, such as in pointing to those who offer genuine help and in warning against those who fraudulently offer support in order to steal ideas.
	There is also a problem in getting big business interested in the amateur, because it is often not interested. It works by looking at its own products and development streams. If someone has an idea that is of relevance, it can be hard for them to identify who in the corporate structure might listen and be willing at least to take them to the next step.
	What are the remedies? I do not pretend that I have all the answers, and nor do I pretend that nothing has been done before now to meet some of the demands. I have mentioned inventors clubs; I would like there to be many more of them. They should be promoted. The peer review that is inherent in such clubs' activities is of great benefit, as is the mutual support they offer.
	Organisations such as Business Link and the regional development agencies must be fully engaged. Business Link is very good in terms of what it makes available online—it has comprehensive website support. In some other areas, too, it provides exactly the sort of help that people need for the initial stages. Again, however, this support is patchy; it is not consistently provided across the country as that very much depends on the enthusiasms of local organisations. I do not think that RDAs do nearly enough on this, however. They do not recognise the huge potential economic benefit in seeing such ideas brought through the stages of development to eventually creating jobs and wealth. RDAs are simply not set up to identify these opportunities, but they should be.
	The British Library is also enormously valuable in this regard. I was not previously aware of that. Shortly after I discovered that I had secured this debate and it was advertised, I was contacted by the public affairs manager at the British Library, who said, "You do know what we're doing already, don't you?" I am a great fan of the British Library. I visited it to attend an exhibition only a few months ago, and I think it does a great job. In 2006, it set up the British Library business and intellectual property centre, which provides a lot of support to those businesses who can find their way there—that is the critical factor, of course. It says it has welcomed 100,000 businesses since it opened. Interestingly, it also said it had recently experienced a marked increase in the number of people finding their way there, particularly among people who are unemployed. Perhaps one reaction to the recession is that people who have been nursing an ambition for a long time are thinking, "Now is the time. I'm going to do something about this", and they are trying to make use of the support that is on offer.
	The centre at the British Library offers some of that support, but—and it is a big "but"—it could do more if it had a little more investment and connection with the rest of the country. The British Library is a national resource, but it is in London. It is online, so it is available to everyone via the web, but there is a difference between getting information online and actually going and talking to someone face to face. I therefore wonder whether we need a greater ability to use the facilities of the British Library in other parts of the country in order to provide support.
	The key issue is so often funding and finding the right business partner—business angel—to take a project forward. I have a pedantic issue with the popular TV series "Dragons' Den"—its name. Dragons do not live in dens; however alliterative that may be, they live in lairs. That puts me off, but it is a very good and entertaining programme, and it provides a real connection between people with money and people with ideas, so that the money supports the ideas. We need more dragons' dens; we need an easily available one in every part of the country, rather than just having a television programme. We need something that puts people with money in contact with people with ideas and enables them to come to local agreements.
	My final point perhaps deals with a much bigger issue, although I am unsure whether it falls directly within the context of this debate I wonder whether it is time that we should start to think in terms of local—regional—stock exchanges. We are used to the investment money that flows through London, but London is not the country as a whole. I would love to see a stock exchange in Bristol or Bath, in Cardiff and in the cities of the north of England. That would provide the opportunity for local people to invest in local entrepreneurs and provide that sort of funding. This is an idea whose time has perhaps come, and I impress it on the Government as something that should be examined.
	In summation, I am saying that there are people with great ideas who have a problem: they often face so many barriers in taking those ideas forward to the point at which they go into production and start creating jobs and wealth. A relatively small amount of support, in addition to what is being supplied, could unlock a huge amount of capacity for innovation and invention across the country. I am inviting the Minister to agree with that proposition and to take away the thought that this is something that the Government can usefully do, not just centrally—not just here in the capital—but across the country, so that all those people with their bright ideas in their garden sheds end up with the factories producing the goods, which will help us through the current economic problems and to a much brighter future.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he put his remarks. I hope that he will also allow me a moment to congratulate a native of Frome, Jenson Button, on becoming Formula 1 world champion. If we praise Mr. Button's success, we must also recognise that it was made possible by the inventiveness of his British-based team, so, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's choice of subject for this debate.
	Invention is an important subject in a country whose competitiveness in world markets, no less than on the race track, depends increasingly on its ability to make technological breakthroughs and put them to good use. Sometimes those breakthroughs are the product of big-money investment by big business, sometimes they are the result of practical applications being found for discoveries made in our universities and sometimes they happen just because the proverbial lone inventor has a bright idea—the hon. Gentleman has elucidated that—while doing the washing up, for example.
	For many inventors there is often a missing link somewhere in the chain. Whether we are talking about funding at an early stage, protecting their intellectual property, developing a prototype, finding the right partner or bringing the product to fruition and to market, we need to create an environment in which innovation can thrive. The Government recognise that, which is why we and our partners have a raft of ways to help inventors bridge those gaps.
	The hon. Gentleman is right. We have traditionally been very good at invention in this country, but we have been far less good at commercialisation. Many of the new industries and technologies that we now rely on, particularly those to do with the internet, were born out of the previous recession in California. We need to get better, and all our policies are aimed at ensuring that.
	Any inventor's first port of call for advice should be the excellent Business Link website. It offers a wealth of advice, including tips on commercialisation and legal issues, and contains links to other sources of local and regional support for inventors. However helpful the advice on offer is, finances will undoubtedly, of course, be one of any inventor's chief concerns. This is an area where I hope that our record of investment is beginning to bear fruit. Since 1997, public spending on the UK science base in particular has more than doubled. Although much of that money has been spent in universities and research institutes, it has undoubtedly helped to bolster sectors of the economy that will drive future growth. They include life sciences, low-carbon technology, digital media and advanced manufacturing.
	Focusing investment in invention and innovation on areas where we have existing strength and potential future competitive advantages makes sense at any time, but it is more important than ever as we begin to emerge from recession into recovery. Help is available in the form of grants for research and development. They provide funding which can be used to fund proof of concept, research, prototyping, patenting and product development costs.
	The grant for research and development is a Solutions for Business product, which can help to introduce technological innovation in businesses. The grant provides finance to individuals and small and medium-sized businesses in England to research and develop technologically innovative products and processes. It is a national scheme that is run and funded by the regional development agencies and the budget for the grants available to inventors in the south-west is £1.5 million this year.
	In previous years, that money has supported a number of individuals and small companies in the south-west in taking their product to market, such as the grants that went to Fluvial Innovations, a multi-award-winning company that provides functional and economical solutions against the risk of flooding, and Xintronix, a high-tech semiconductor company that was supported by UK Trade and Innovation and the South West of England Regional Development Agency. These companies are two of a number of companies that had just one employee at the time of application.
	I recognise that some call for full funding through the grant for research and development, but that is not right in principle. We cannot fully grant inventors the whole cost of their inventions, as all serious inventors need to share the risk of their inventions. Beyond that, there are state aid rules that preclude 100 per cent. support for any inventions.
	Collaborative research and development is another Solutions for Business product that provides grants to help cut the cost burden associated with bringing research to market. The grants are delivered as part of the activities of the Technology Strategy Board. We have also introduced innovation vouchers to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to buy support from knowledge-based institutions so that they can explore potential opportunities for collaboration in developing new products. Innovation vouchers are being piloted nationally, and the pilot will start in the south-west region in April 2010. The hon. Gentleman will want to ensure that the inventors whom he has met recently are able to access those innovation vouchers.
	A number of other agencies around the UK fund innovation. Time prevents me from mentioning them all, but they include the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, the Design Council and the 10 EU-funded business innovation centres. In addition to grants, many inventors will need some form of equity finance if their inventions are to be realised commercially. The British Business Angels Association and the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association provide help with all aspects of business angel and venture capital support.
	This is a tough time for venture capital, but the support is there. Business Link also has a comprehensive guide to equity finance that explains the Government grants available to help finance parts of projects.
	Funding can be a key issue, and as the hon. Gentleman said, other aspects of inventing can be complicated, too. Most inventors are looking for quality intellectual property advice, and the Intellectual Property Office and its partners have developed a suite of products to guide them through the process. There are online databases, such as the one run by the British Library and the European Patent Office to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Inventors can search them for patent documents for free, and I hope that many of the applications are granted as a result of the advice that is available.
	There is also an intellectual property tool online, known as the IP Healthcheck, which is free to use and helps inventors answer questions about intellectual property. It is broken down into the four elements of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright, each of which should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Advice and help on searching patents, designs and trade marks is also available through the network of 13 patent information libraries, two of which are in the hon. Gentleman's area, at Bristol and Plymouth.
	The IPO also runs a programme of free intellectual property awareness seminars across the UK, aimed at businesses that want to find out more about the benefits of using intellectual property. The IPO also produces a guide to the advantages and disadvantages of seeking patent protection, and it also offers help with the use of trade marks. For the past 10 years, the IPO has supported the ideas21 network for inventors, which enables successful inventors, business and intellectual property professionals to help would-be inventors through the complex process of turning an idea into a commercial success.
	Among many other initiatives, the IPO is currently working with partners to develop a standard for invention promoters. Most invention promotion or marketing companies are perfectly reputable, but I know, as was said earlier, that too many inventors have fallen foul of unscrupulous operators in that area. I hope that the new standard will help inventors to market their ideas with more confidence.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the effects of fees for patents on inventors. Although patents do entail an outlay, the fees chargeable for an initial patent remain well below cost price. Indeed, the real cash price of a patent is lower now than it was 150 years ago—notwithstanding the involvement of lawyers in this area.
	The Government encourage and support invention, but we do not pick winners. Instead, we want to create the right environment for invention and innovation to thrive. When inventors are ready to take their invention to market, we help them identify the best way to find a potential licensee. We also offer guidance about the non-disclosure agreement process by which they can secure a confidentiality agreement before revealing their idea.
	We also encourage collaboration with business or universities. I particularly mention universities. There are so many spin-outs coming out of our universities for inventors to be plugged into what is happening in that hub in their local area. Business Link does what it can to ensure that right from the beginning, all the advice is available. It will be regional and it will be different in different contexts. We know that it is not perfect, and we want to make it better. I hope that in my short contribution I have set out all that is available.
	Regional development agencies are important in this context. The overall spend on innovation is £260 million across the region. It must be for RDAs to determine local priorities, but I know that that is understood in the south-west. It is an area where creative businesses have been at the hub of activity, not just locally, but nationally. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House, and I hope I have set out how we are attempting to provide support. We can get better and we must do so. We must be in a position to commercialise invention and bring to full fruition the innovation nation that the Government have always said we must be.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.